PERSONAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17069, 30 July 1917, Page 2

PERSONAL.

A Press Association message from Wellington reports. tHe death ot Mr Jierbert B. iiirkcaiolie, a member of toe firm of Messrs iiirkoaidie and tttains, from pleurisy following on intliienr.a. His age was 42 years.

Mr Thomas Ireland, who has for the past five years been employed by Meesns John Reid and Sons, fust as a property salesman, and later in the accountancy department, will leave Dunedin this morning for Ohakune, where ho has been appointed town clerk. Prior to his departure Mr G. Russell Smith, on behalf of the firm presented him with a solid leather suit case, and took the opportunity ot stating that Mr Ireland had given every satisfaction in both departments of his wort. Mr A.Kilpatrick, on behalf of the staff, then, presented him with a serviceable pocket-" book, and referred to the pleasant relations that had always existed between Mr Ireland and his fe How-employees. The recipient suitably responded. 'ihe drainage schema for file city of Christchuroh baa been practically completed and the Drainage Board there is now preparing to extend the work to several largo and widely-separated suburbs. This undertaking will bo one of considerable magnitude, and Mr James Oullens, who for the past eight yeais has been chief assistant engineer to the Dunedin Drainage Board, will probably have a responsible share in it, as ho has been appointed assistant engineer to the Christchiurch Drainage Board. Mr Oullens gained his initial experience as an engineer in Glasgow, working under the city engineer when' the drainage scheme of that city was carried out. He came to Dunedin in 1901, and from 1902 to 1906 was with the Dunedin Drainage Board. Then he went to Christehurch, and held an appointment for three ■ -vrs on the staff of the iboard which he is now rejoining. In 1909 he became principal assistant to Mr Slinger in • Dunedin. Ho will probably take up his new duties in a month or six weeks.

The National Council of the Australian Y.M.CJL, prompted by its recognition of the need and by its appreciation of the support -which, the Jews of Australia have given tr the Y.M.C.A. war work, has appointed Mr Harold Boas, son of a Jewish minister at Adelaide, Jewish representative of the association for special service to Australian Jewish soldiers at home and abroad. Tho residents of Henley assembled in goodly numbers last Friday evening to bid farewell to Miss Smith, on tho evo of her departure to take up a position in tho New Plymouth High School. They presented her with two handsome leather suit cases, and her sister with a gold circlet brooch and two silver vases. Several speeches wore made in praiso of Miss Smith's work as a teacher, and expressive of good wishes for the future.' Miss Smith responded, thanking tho people for their useful presents and for the kindness which she and her sister had received from them.

Don't bo anxious, little mother 1 All. your needless fears dispel; Tho' your darling seems to smother In the morning she'll be well. If you'll keep her warm and cheerful,' And all home-made dopes abjure— Don't be timid, tired, and tearful: . C&m her Woods' GjEßai Cure

LAND TENURES IN OTAGO. TO OILE KUITOE. Sib,—l am much obliged to Mr Sivertsen for 1113 reference to air J. M'Kenzio'a Bill, which, ho says, was believed by its supporters to bo tho solution of tho evils of landlordism. Hero was legislation dealing with tho land for something like 30 generations. A generation has not passed away, and it is altered, proving tho wisdom of Sir Ueorgo Grey's contention that ono generation should not so deal with tho laud as to prevent future generations dealing with it. The trouble with land laws arises from the necessity which exists for the division of the land among our increasing population. Mr Sivortscn says: "A careful consideration ahows us that these evils do not arise from tho freehold. On tho oontrary, we find they originate from tho leasehold. Every oruel oviction recorded, every extortionate rise in rent can bo traced directly and exclusively to the freehold." If Mr Sivertscn will add to his statement the words "owing to tho Crown having parted with tho freehold," ho has the explanation. What about tho consideration the leasehold runholders received afer a severe snowstorm or some leasehold farmers received, when their crops wero a failure? Mr Sivertsen further asks whether there are any persons who for a moment believe that as tenants paying a rent, they would be better off than as freeholders paying no rent. Sir, can I make this dear, that what I would like is to see every man owning his own homo? What I want is to give him ready access to the land, that he may have no rent to pay beyond his land right or ground rent. About 77 years ago a Mr Wentworth claimed to bo landlord of the whole'of the South Island, excepting about three million acres, which he purchased for £200" a year as long as the Maori chiefs lived. Mr Jones had a more modest claim to the land from Waikouaiti to Riverton. Cruickshanks and Cohen claimed 7000 acres for £70 they had paid. Everyone will admit that it would not be for tho common weal that their heirs or descendants should be landof that area; neither should any multiplo of these. One would be wrong. How many, has that one to be multiplied before it becomes right? To come to our own day, Sir John M'Kenzie purohased the Cheviot Estate, for which many hold him in kindly remembrance, consisting of 85,000 aores, which, ran from the Hurumii to Waiau, and were held for years by ono man. If the Cheviot County comprises what was the Cheviot Estate only, there is now a population of 1224, and whereas for the area for which ono man's name would bo on the assessment roll there are now 661. And in purchasing this area Sir John M'Kenzie tended to stop the departure of people from tho South Island! Mr Sivertsen wants to put a test to all leasehold advocates whether they would advocate the Crown leasehold as a relief to all private tenants. If he means that the Crown should purchase the improvements in city and country and then let them to the tenants, I say " No" ; but if a tenant farmer holding land only from a landlord wishes to have the Crown as his landlord, and the landlord is agreeable, I say "Yes," provided tho rent and value are approved. In fact, I think that the State should have the first refusal of all land for sale or of leases where tho tenant wishes to retire. I have in my mind's eye two properties close to railway, school, and dairy factory, the acquisition of which by the Crown would have made for increased trade for Otago. Yet both went to one who already _ possessed a large estate. I am not writing from a book, but entirely from my own observations in different parts of the dominion and for the well-being of the whole community.—l am, etc., John Hat.

[We have omitted from the above letter tho writer's views with reference to the ownership of city lands. These are not relevant to the original question, and we cannot afford the space for a discussion on an enlarged issue.—Ed. O.D.T.]

Sib,—Having spent the larger portion of my life in Central Otago, I am naturally very much interested in all matters relating to it, and, therefore, I read with great interest the report of Mr Hunt's address at a recent meeting of Dunedin citizens. Mr Hunt, as was to be expected of him, treated the subject of his address in a most thorough manner, gave a picture of the present condition of Central Otago, as compared with that of many years ago, and his statistics may probably be taken as absolutely correct, while his remedy seems to be the\ only one in view—if, indeed, a remedy can be found. It is with regard to the latter that T wish to say a few words, as it is quite likely_ that many people may under-rato the difficulties that are sure to be met with in any endeavour to restore the country to something like its former condition, as well as the necessary cost of it. Mr Hunt says quite correctly that if a solution is to be found it must be by taking the following steps:—Netting in the country, killing off the rabbits, regrassing, and finally giving the land a rest for several years. Now, as to the cost of doing all this: The cost of erecting rabbit-proof fences can easily be arrived at, as also that of grass seed, while loss of use of capital for several years will represent a, sum which anyone can work out. Killing off the rabbits, and afterwards keeping the ground free from the pest and maintaining in good order the netting that protects it, must bo difficult and expensive .under any circumstances, but especially so now that those following the occupation of rabbiting have been accustomed to making very high wages, and they are not likely in the near future to settle down to a moderato weekly wage. Still, the difficulty in this connection is not insuperable, and I will content myself with having drawn attention to it. Then comes the difficulty of a suitable grass for what we used to consider our best country, of which Galloway and Ida Valley are fair samples. A suitable grass may be found, but when wo remember that these lands have practically no . surface soil and have a very sunny exposure, while the rainfalL averages something like 14 inches it is difficult to imagine any grass likely to suit such conditions. It may not be generally known that this country was always bare in the sense that it was tussocky, and although I have seen Galloway waving like a cornfield with oat and barley grass, the tussocks were always far apart showing that the reseeding one would have expected had never taken, place during the long period before sheep were introduced. Say, however, that by some means tho country can be brought back to something like its original condition—and it requires a good deal of faith to concede so much— what is likely to be the proportion of cost to result? Tho original carrying capacity may be taken as one sheep to three acres, and I think a sort of estimate of value can be made in the following manner-:—Land in Hawke's Bay capable of carrying one ewe per. acre and the necessary ewe lambs to maintain the flock, was worth.£6 per..acre when I came up from Otago six years ago and for my present purpose it will bo the Otago land no injustice if I put down itsvalue at something approaching £2 were it in similar condition, leaving for individual consideration such questions as the difference in markets as between north and south the rabbit pest, and others, which sheep men will readily understand. If this _is a. fair rough estimate, then the question is simply as to whether the cost plus the risk of dealing with such land would not bo too great for the expected result. I do not say that this land is without a certain value now, being worked as it is in conjunction with other land more favourably situated, or at least not yet quit© destroyed. Much of it grows weeds of sorts and, above all, thistles, which are a great stand-by at certain seasons of the year. Still, the rabbits are steadily doing their work of destruction, and I was much struck by tho change which I saw in the Maniototo after an absence of six years. Indeed, the sight was so disheartening- that I think I shall never again visit Central Otago. I have not thought it necessary to say anything as to what might be done by great schemes of irrigation, which, was water available, might induce people'with the ideas of the French peasant class to make an attempt on other than pastoral lines, that beLig a thought too far away for our present purpose.—l am, etc., Robert M. TtnarßUTiL. Kereru, Hastings, July 23.

Sir, —I owe an apology to "N.Z." for having asserted that, he Had evidently been powerfully influenced by such writers as Henry Georgo and A. ~R. Wallace. Mv presumption arose from a belief that )' N.Z.," ae a strong opponent of landlordism, would also be animated by tho same noble aspirations which dominated George and Wallace in their untiring efforts to expose tho evils of landlordism. I am thankful to "N.Z." for having dispelled my illusion. I feel now that I am on surer ground. Stimulated by his remarks 'that '' I have said nothing now or worthy of attention," and that, " even if correct deductions such as thoso (made by me) constitute no argument," I am forced to the conclusion that his desire to extend the blessings which ho claims for the Crown leasehold has no tangible foundation If I am again -wrong, I hope thai " N,Z." will, with tho same unsparing ioal, again expose my erroneous presumptions. There are thousands of men ana women who noesess the franchise and can vote for or against tho _ freehold tenure, but are totally unaccmaiaied ■***& tha issues. iayoXweoL au<J

could not explain how the difference in tho two forms of tenure affects tlio income of tho upper classes and the wages of tho working classes. It is this difference which constitutes the crux of the land question. The contributions from our country friends, while not without important bearing upon the subject, have tended to obscure rather than to elucidate the subject. All the remarks upon the rabbit pest and its eradicadry climate, torrential rains, " resting " tho land, tho land of plante to cultivate, relate exclusively to tho occupants, and have the utmost importance in determining rentals or tho capital value of tho land, but one of no direct importance when the question is that of determining whether a Crown lease is better than a freehold. The arguments affecting this issue have heen very tersely introduced. by Dr Macdonald in hie two important statements, which relate to the personal efficiency of tho occupant and to land speculation. No one should find any difficulty in pronouncing that the most efficient man is tho most qualified to cultivate tho land, as it is obvious that he will produce .more wealth than the less efficient. The question which has to be answered is therefore, how does land tenure affect efficiency? Will a man produce more wealth as a freeholder than as a leaseholder? To the community as a whole these questions have great importance, because a benefit extending to tho whole community can only be conferred by a greater production of wealth m tho first instance. Wo are therefore brought to the questions whksh deal with incentives to production. A tenure in order to effect a greater production requires that the occupant shall be secure of enjoying the fruits of his industry. Now a freehold tenure secures this for fife. It, therefore, becomes obvious that a leasehold, to be equal, must also be for life. But whilo a freehold tenure obliterates all future questions as to rent the leasehold becomes the fruitful source of creating endless vexations in deterrnimng what tho annual rent shall be for a life tenancy. Tho simplicity of the freehold m comparison to the nraltiplioity of the leasehold must become obvious to every student who makes an exhaustive inquiry u JrV. ° difFerellt conditions surrounding both Crown and private leaseholds. Tho leaseholder must prove that it is possible to devise a system by which the tenant secures tho same duration of tenure as that conferred by the freehold and at a rental which does not oxceed the payments required to be made to secure the freehold if such a system of leasehold tenure could be framed, then tho leasehold would clearly be just as good as tho freehold, but it would be no better, and this clearly proves it nas no advantages over the freehold Tho most efficient farmer would be no more fSK Und f iH tenure to «*** tho freehold, and this fact must finally dispose of the leasehold m favour of the freehoß Ma h GT issuo raised by Dr Macdonald refers to land speculation? 7 The S E Sr C f? a *, OT> , we must notQ . » a totally H nd c ° f the freeholder and tenant farmer. These are both onltL? ™ f , the , S °\ W \° P™ d ™ wealth of the greatest value to the community. The land speculator, on the other hand, while he as e tt, e W ?^ h Wt as muchavid% ™J h6 .j£ lk}r on ti» soil, does so without bis utnhty, therefore, demands no explanation we find that eTer pg£l spondent ,s opposed to his practice and seeks his fcuppressTon. To Sv£ how, this may bo effected we rotefckt ° nly <_KPractfsed u££ tnose who have no freehold. This w further evidence of the superior virtue of points to the conclusion that in the univer sal application of the freehold we ha™ the power to suppress tho land apellate™ As rise m the price of tho products of tho soil so it follows that when prices fall land values has° 4 nas a far-rcachmg influence, because the entire rise in land values is paMbt tho but'Trive : h ° return tL ? com P advantage m to appropriate, a. 7™,gV fl£ Ly S r2 nCe ' P lO P rob l«n is now to he between the whole body of woS who as consumers, are forced to rTav lh« higher prices and, thereto™ \™ Pif y • thus land speoulatT* But ?t°muS T °A UU I "S*" 1 that f '° rise in P S is not due to the actions of the speculator It arises from the. fact that wo deterS the urice of our food and nee JsLks IHhe WhT R * &B «£■ket While tho freehold would be a solution tar land speculation, it would not solve the labour problem or that part of it dealing with wages. To protect tho workers' wages prices must from rising, and in this prevention n^lhe knd *«**&& from the ranks of the workers. It L ™W on the part of all land speculator? to £ passive supporters of the freehold, but active opponents of its universal acWion As we live n an age of a££*£P&£. msy concealing self-interest wrthTcX£ of apparent honesty, we need not Sr to questaori those labour leaders who ar7 responsible for splitting up the worW £ opposing the freehold.-I am, e tc W. SIVEBTSEH. [We regret tliat we cannot provide further space for a general of the m£l tion of land tenures.—Ed ODT]