THE MATAURA ELECTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14382, 27 November 1908, Page 5

THE MATAURA ELECTION.

tu \'r. ? r 1 " grcafc ma "y people in the Mataura electorate and in other parts of the Dominion whe imagine that it-■was the land question and dairy regulations that were responsible for Mr M'Nab's -defeat. I can assure these peoplo that the land question and dairy regulations had nothing whatever to do with it. It was personal spite, unfair taotics, and tho votes. ?l J 6 f ( if W^x T n , of Goro of both sexes that put Mr M'Nab out, and I can prove: Hiat to be the ease. If it, was the land question and dairy regulations, how was it that m the country, districts of tho Mataura electorate Mr M'Nab {tolled riioro votes than he did at the previous election? It was the town of Gore that gave Mr Anderson Ins majority. In Gore the remarkable, somersault was caused by the bungling of lr »? r Sr Hlgh Sch ° ol authorities, for which Mr M'Nab was naturally and ' unfairly blamed, and also by the action of the *\» w ' lo wero indignant. at Mr AI Nabs failure to overrule the law of New Zealand. To .Mata-ura electors thy - raplanatiohs '.given of Mr M'Nab's defeat b.v leading politicians throughout the Donunion make amusing- reading. At the previous election Mr M'Nab's majority in tho town of Gore was over 300, and at this election Mr Anderson had a majority of over 100, . , I heard Mi- Anderson give his views on ; tho land Question in Mataura, and lie told the people there that it was a question that he had studied a great deal, and one that he considered he know , something i about Well, I can assure Mr Anderson that lie will require to study it a great deal .more, uecauso as yet he knows very little about it. He quoted Ireland in support of " his contention that- the leasehold ■ was bad form of land tenure. Why, any parson who knows anything about the land laws of Ireland knows quite well that thero is no comparison between tho leasehold in Ireland and the leasehold in New Zealand, because the land 'that was leasehold in Ireland was owned by private, and absen-. tee landlords, whose agents leased thei' land ;to the people- at enormous rents in order to further their own selfish' ends, and of course the thing has. been a failure, as the people could not live on the. land and pay such large, amounts of money away in rent to the landlords. And when-they could not pay they were driven .out on to the road to starve. It, ie a fact'thai; there have been thousands-of families in Ireland .put out of their farms in this way. It was the private ownership of land and capital in i Ireland' that caused all the poverty and misery in that, country. Besides, . fee very' same' landlords arid 1 capitalists were protected by the laws-that were made in the English Housed of Com- - tnons, and of course they could do as they ; liked, and the poor people had no ohaiioe. - That ■is ] the leasehold , system that -. Mr Anderson compared with' the system in | New Zealand, whero the land -is- leased' from the State., In this country the landlord that owns the leasehold lands is the State —in other words, the people lease the land to. the people, and of course the people get the benefit. For-that reason a man can get on to tho land with practically nocapital, and do well on it, as' hundreds have done this last few years. If Ireland had beon managed in the same was. as this.. country is it would have been a prosperous country, to-day. Instead of that, thousands of people have, had to leave it every.yeat because the country has been ruined by bad legislation, and _ the men that have been responsible for it all are of the same class as- the party that Mr Anderson supports and would have in New Zealand to-day.' 'It ; is the large land-holder that will .have to' leave this country, and not the email leaseholder, as in Ireland, and rightly so, too,' as they ' ar© men that, this or, aiiy ftlher can very 'well' do without. II -fe'el sure that it would have been a, better thing for this country if the Government had stuck to Ma- M'Nab'a origihal' Land Bill, and I hope the time will come when all the land of this country will .be owned by the State, for then the gamble that has ' been going on in freehold land will! be done away-with. Of course that: will '/not suit the Opposition, as'its cry always, is: " Give the people the freehold and,you will - •have happy,. prosperous, and contended farmers." , That is not so, however,, as a man farms land' for what he, can -get out : of it, arid for that , reason he will, be no more contented on a freehold than he will be on a leasehold. I know men in this district that have been on freehold farms for 15 or 20 years, and becauierisome . gontleman came alone and offered £4, or £5 an acre more than they gave for it they broke up , their homes and. cold out, and these men were doing well. Why were they not contented? If the price o! dairy' produce comes down like w001,,, for . instance, there will be a great nianjr peoplo ruined, all through'die competition: for freehold land, because'men have' bought farms at the present- high prices, and ia many 'cases have borowed the money, to pay for them from private • money-lenders. For. instance, I know a man a-few; miles, from Mataura who borowed money about a month ago and paid 10 per for it to a money-lender in Mataura. It is little, wonder that men of hia class cry down tho Advances to Settlers Act, and. this, sainegentleman was a strong supporter, of; Mr Anderson.' - ' .In conclusion, I think it' is to ;be . regretted that a man like Mr Anderson, that knows so little about .land mattersi should, have been returned in place of Mr ,M'Nab. who has done so much for the country and the farmers.—l am, etc., Leasshoidbb. Mataura, . November 25. ;