The Opunake Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1907. OWNERSHIP OF LAND.

Opunake Times, Volume XXV, Issue 947, 8 February 1907, Page 2

The Opunake Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1907. OWNERSHIP OF LAND.

As there have been so many meetings and so much discussion on the land question, the Ellesmere Guardian asks the question : To whom does the land belong ? In the case of New Zealand a handful of early colonists, aided by a few Imperial troops, won it for us by conquest. This being so is it not open to any nation or conquering host, who thinks they are strong enough to displace us, and be able to hold the country, to come along and become the owners ? And it is just possible that whilst Single Taxers and Socialists are squabbling amongst themselves as to what tenure we are to hold our lands under, how much taxation we are to pay, and while they are talking about their " natural rights," that the Japanese or Germans, who are not quite so squeamish, will come along some fine morning and settle the question for us by appropriating the rights, both "natural" and " unnatural." If the Government has no right to grant us the freehold, it has no more right to grant us the leaeehold. Socialists, to be logical, should only grant the use of the land from week to week, oi year to year, but they know that such conditions would bring about chaos, so in Mr McNab's Bill a 66 years' lease is proposed. The most progressive races have all adopted the freehold, recognising that land is never so well "nationalised" as wheu in the hands of those whose interest it is to make the best of it. It is a curious fact that where any nation has nationalised the land it has become stagnant. In the Indian Empire the Government has always been the nominal landlord, still the masses have sunk into abject poverty. Amongst the Maoris communism ha 3 been brought to great perfection, but their mode of life is not likely to appeal to many of our own race unless it be tbe loafer and the chronically tired individuals who haunt tbe street corners of the cities. If private ownership of land is such a huge evil we might expeot those nations who have adopted it to be suffering from a withering blight. But this is not the case with England, France, or America, where freehold is the chief tenure. Socialists assert that the unearned increment is created by the people in the country, which has a small substratum of truth in it. It is not denied that when population begins to press on the land that the tendency is for it to rise in value, but so far as this argument is true it applies to every commodity as well as to land. Of what use would the drapers' wonderful bargains bo without the people to buy them ? How would the Jew get his ''shent per shent " unless there were borrowers ? And do these people not live on the necessities of the people as much as the worst landlord that ever flourished ? There is a good deal of second-class land in the colony, much of it at one time thought to be worthless. But one day a man comes into a district and takes up some of the poor-looking country. He drains, ploughs and grasses it, and the desert and the wilderness blossom as the rose, and the inhabitants of the country are amazed. There being a rush for the adjoining sections, the unimproved value goes up, perhaps, tenfold in a short time. To whom does this extra rTnimproved value belong ? Society has a short memory for its real benefactors, and forgets the man who trusted to his own judgment and strong arm and thus wrested the laud from its wilderness. And then, the Single Taxers and Socialists come along and stait whining about being robbed of the " unearned increment." A Minister on the leasehold campaign recently said, " There is not a man, woman, or child in the colony but has as much right to their share of the ' unimproved value ' as any landowner in the colony." Of course that sentiment was greatly applauded by the audience of mechanics and tradesmen present, not one of whom probably would go on to such laud if he were made a present of it. Every settler who clears a piece of land, or erects a fence or house, or help 3 to make a road is sending up the " unimproved value " of land. What do the crowd of artisans who spend large sums on the racecourse or in " shouting " for friends do towards raising the unimproved value ? If anything were to happen to our markets in Great Britain the value of the land would drop to zero, and then there would be no " unearned increment " to squabble ov>r. To show how the unimproved value of land has gone up in New Zealand, the following figures arn quoted : Iu 1891 the unimproved value for the colony was a little over £75,000,000; in 1906 it amounted to £187,000,000, an increase 0LE62,000,000. Last year we raised in Customs,

Stamps, Land Tax, Marine, &c, close on £5,000.000 revenue. This works out at about 9d in the £ on the whole of the unimproved value. Thus a man owning a farm assessed at an unimproved value of £IOOO would pay Ml 10s per annum in a direct tax to carry on the government of the country. Messrs Fowlds and Laurenson try to impress on the town audiences that the people in the towns would pay as much under a single tax as country people. The unimproved value of all the cities and boroughs is about £37,000,000, but the unimproved value of the country lands is £100,000,000, which means that the owners of the country lands would have to pay nearly three times as much as the town owners. As it is considered that Single Tax would mean Free Trade, there is not much chance of the tax coming into force, as the towns would never submit to it. We are told that a man has a right to a fair living in the world, and it is the duty of the State to see that he gets it. A man has a right to what his labour and ability will produce. If farmers would wake up and take more interest in these matters we would hear less about the subjeot, aud the country would progress along much sounder lines.