THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, MARCH 21,1907. THE LAND POLICY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13857, 21 March 1907, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, MARCH 21,1907. THE LAND POLICY.

Mr Boddie, who is addressing ,1 series of meetings in Otago on the land question under the auspices of tho Fanners' Union, .will have impressed his audiences with the conviction that he knows his subject thoroughly and that he is not likely to injure his cause by reckless or indiscriminate criticism of the Government proposals. The views which he has expressed in his meetings at Waikouaiti and Palmerston do not commend themselves in their entirety to our judgment, but it is nob open to anyone to charge him with lack of moderation, in the opposition lie offers to the Land Bill. The main object, of the campaign upon which Mr Boddie has entered is, we take it. to excite- into activity the feeling that must bo possessed by every person who tills tho soil in favour of the freehold tenure af land

and to organise such a demonstration against the proposals of the Government to abolish the optional system of selection of Crown lands as will ensure the preservation of the option of the freehold. To the principle of the provisions of the Land Bill that are directed to the limitation of estates Mr Boddie, it is gratifying to observe, raises no strong objection. But he does protest that the reduction of th© area of large estates under the plan proposed by the Government is not likely to be effected in a manner that will give a poor man a chance of securing a piece of land. Obviously, the method that will 'lie adopted by the' land-owners who will be. compelled to burst up their surplus lands will bo one that will subject the man of limited means to a very distinct handicap. What laud is not disposed of by private treaty will be submitted to public competition, and in nine cases out often the small man will assuredly ba overbidden. Prom his point of view, this plan of bursting-up will be even less satisfactory than that provided under the operation of the Land for Settlements Act, where lie has a chance of securing a section, even though that chance is resolved into a matter of his luck in a- Government lottery in which the new form of dummyism, as the Minister of Lands has called it, gives the man with a string of relatives, each of whom is an applicant on his behalf, a decidedly unfair advantage. But the Government lias concluded that it is impossible that it can continue to borrow money in large amounts for the acquisition of lauds for settlement. The device proposed in the Land Bill for forcing the owners of tli'3 most valuable estates to sell portions of their properties is intended to secure that laud for settlement. shall be provided in largo measure by means other than those employed for the past twelve years. As Mr Boddie contends, and as must, indeed, be obvious, it is not a device under which tho man of limited resources will have much opportunity of securing a freehold farm. What, then, is the provision for the poor man] The Land Bill offers him a sixty-six years' renewable lease of second class and third class land of the kind which now remains in the hands of the Crown. But it denies to him even the smallest opportunity of securing the freehold of his section. It- deliberately refuses him; the one thing which would be an incentive to him to devote, the best years of his life to the cultivation and improvement of tho laud. The only provision, the Bill makes for the disposal of 1 tho feo simple of land—other than that involved in the limitation scheme— is to bo found in tho proposal that tho holder of a lease in perpetuity may surrender his lease with the view to having the land comprised iu it, burdened with the value of the improvements, offered' for sale by public action. If, however, this provision is intended, as unquestionably it is, to induce holders of 999 years' leases to throw them up for tho sake of competing for the fee simple it will certainly fail of its object. No person holding a lease in perpetuity would, in his sane moments, dream of surrendering his title under such conditions even for the sake of a. chance of obtaining the freehold. He occupies his land under a form of tenure which places him in a peculiarly advantageous position. The lease in perpetuity has been described by a member of the Leasehold party in Parliament as being, from the point of view of the State, an abominable lease. And so it is, and, as it is an abomin-a-blo lease from the point of view of the State, it is an excellent lease —but only a lease and therefore something less desirable than a freehold—from the point of view of the holder. This being the case, it is surely worth the while of the State to offer some inducement to the lessee to convert the lease into a freehold. A mutual advantage will accrue from the accomplishment of such a change 1 of tenure. The farmer will, have his aspiration for a freehold duly satisfied. Moreover, he will be encouraged to use his best efforts to bring his land to the highest pitclr of .cultivation. The State, for its part, will benefit through the increased production from tho land and through its ability, by the utilisation of the earmarked proceeds of the sales, to prosecuto its design of acquiring estates for subdivision \pthout having to seek fuiids for the pppose from the money-lender. Upon the general principle that the freehold system is, from every point of view, more satisfactory than the lease in perpetuity there cannot be much room for difference of opinion. But the question of the terms upon which the holder of the lease in perpetuity should be permitted to acquire the freehold of his land is not so easily settled. Mr Boddie argues that there would be nothing immoral in giving the tenant the option of acquiring at the original value. We are not prepared to say that the transaction would 1 be immoral, and we do not ignore the fact that the argument that the concession of the freehold at the original value would involve a. gift of several millions by the Crown to the is somewhat ridiculous. For since, under the terms of the lease, it will he a matter of 1000 years before the Crown secures the unearned increment, of which we hear SO' much, and since the land held under lease in perpetuity escapes, as it practically does, direct taxation at the present time, it is plain that under existing conditions the State has a very slender grip of the- increment. As a matter of fact, leases in perpetuity are constantly being trafficked in on terms that secure to the outgoing tenants large sums in payment for goodwill. But it would not be equitable that in the readjustment of the contract between the State and the tenant, so as to sceure that the State shall get out of a bad bargain and that the -tenant shall acquire a tenure which he is anxious to secure, there should not be a certain amount of give-and-take between the parties. It is worth something—perhaps a good deal—to the lessee to obtain the freehold and be freed from all the worries, including that induced by the fear of the revaluation bogey, to which Crown

tenants, are exposed. Our belief that the settlers, as a class, will bo disposed to view tlio matter in this light, is confirmed by reference lo the statistics of land settlement in tlio colony in the period for which "The Land Act, 1892," has been in operation. The returns show that, while 4152 persons have taken up land under the optional system on lease in.-perpetuity during these years, as many as 5604 have gladly paid an extra 1 per' cent, on the capital value; of the land in order to secure a short-term lease with a- purchasing clause. ■ We cannot think, therefore, that.it is necessary—and if it is unnecessary it is inexpedient —that the Crown should go so. far as to offer its tenants the option of purchase at the original value. Whether this option might not be conceded upon condition of the tenant paying, for the whole term of his tenancy, the difference between the 4 per cent., representing tho basis ou which the lessee's rent is fixed, and the 5 per cent., representing the basis on which the paymerifc of the instalments by the holder of the occupation-with-right-of-pnrchase license is fixed, may be n matter for consideration. It is not, however, unreasonable that a fair revaluation of the land should bo a. condition of the variation of the contract.