LABOUR’S LAND POLICY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19501, 9 June 1925, Page 13

LABOUR’S LAND POLICY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your leader in reply to my letter on the above question does you great credit. You have learned the art of being able when cornered to abuse your opponent. 1c is not my intention to try and copy you. t am only concerned as to the truth of your statements, and will leave abuse and sarcasm to you, behoving that your readers will be able ip see through your methods and tactics. You say that the decision of the recent conference, "That the proposals do not iu any way interfere with the right of inheritance, constitutes a clumsy and dishonest attempt to create an erroneous impression respecting the real aim of the party and to cloak its desire to secure that the right of property in land and in the promises and the homes that are erected on land shall be completely abrogated.” It is one thing to say that the party is dishonest and another to prove it. You have not yet proved the charge, and till such times that you make an attempt you will carry very little weight with your intelligent readers. Let u.s assume that the party was dealing with land at the present time and how it would affect the people. Tin.- 'irst thing naturally would bo the question of valuation of all privately-owned land. Clause 5 (a) says: “Such valuation to remain on record as the measure of present landowner’s interest in land.” If this took place to day (ho land owner would bo in :i very fortunate position, owing to the inflated price of land. So, therefore, from that standpoint he has something to gain from supporting the policy. Furthermore, his interest in the land is secured. If he wishes to surrender his right, he has power to do so at the price put on when valued, • but only to the State.” This seems to upset you, but where is the disadvantage to the owner if he wishes to sell'.' He has immediately a buyer—the State. He is sure of his fair price and also the value of his improvements —surely an improvement.. on conditions operating to-day. From L t above readers will see that the right of ownership is not affected, but safeguarded, the condition being that be shall occupy and use the land —surely a just proposition both to the. owner ami the community. With reference to the individual's t right to bequeath his property, which appears to concern you most, let me once again take the case and state it in this way : A possesses farm land, hia interest in it being £lo'oo, and buildings, etc., £IOOO. Ho wishes to leave his interests to his son. He leaves his will instructing the Stale to pass over to bis son the value of his interest Surely leaders will recognise that would be carried out. Assuming, for your benefit. Sir, that the State has now become possessor of the land, would it not want someone to use and occupy the land, and if the son required it is it not commonsense to expect that he would be given the option ? _ v Sir, in conclusion, may I point out that all socialistic legislation placed on the Statute Book of this country or any part of the British Umpire has always, when administered oy persons in sympathy with those principles, reflected itself in an increase in wealth to all persons; and in no single instance where a Labour Government has been in power has the right of ov nership or (he right of the individual to bequeath bis belongings to his wife or children boon taken away. Neither are they likely to be taken away when the Labour Party comes into power in Now Zealand.—T am, etc., C. M. Moss. North-Fast Valley, June 6.