THE LAND QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 1601, 29 July 1882, Page 12

THE LAND QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— Whether the opinions expressed in thedebates on land leasing are the result of honest conviction or the outcome of political generalisations needs no particular power of perception to determine. The conclusion arrived at by some sufficiently declare an utter absence of moral honesty. No real reason, either political, economical, or otherwise, has been adduced! to sustain the argument that it is impolitic %& lease the land. Some may advocate that tb» lands be sold -, otherß would give them away in order to facilitate settlement; whilst others with equal ardour support the deferred-pay-ment system. AU these alike are radically wrong. I would again remind the State thaife though they create the legal power, they haves none the more the moral' right to dispose of the land in perpetuity. The lands aresimply theirs in trust, and intrust alone: lo commit any breach of this trust is a violation of our common rights, whether committed m favour of the moneyed or his poorer brother the deferred-payment speculator— with reference to whom, the action to be, taken by the State is likewise clear. If this class wish for relief, lfc is ready to their hands in the proposed agricultural lease system, which has everything m it to recommend it, subject to a few modifications—the most important of which, isthat instead of a lease continuing for 21, it should continue for' a jubilee. It is preposterous to suppose that deferred-payment settlers should be allowed to make capital out of any action of the State, outside its legitimate functions. The State has no moral right to dispossess them of their tenure, or to secure ■ their possession to them in perpetuity by anyameliorating conditions,' save and except m such as are honestly met in the aforementioned terms.' As a leaseholder who has studied the • whole question, theoretically and practically, for a number of years, whd gave up a good business in order to test the matter, securing a leasehold under very unfavourable conditions, determined in the interests of humanity to know' the truth, I am now well convinced that giving a jubilee of interest on an ascending scale of rent would meet every requirement. Such length of term would not only consolidate but quicken the interest of the lessee in his holding, induce him to farm practically,' energetically, and systematically— to' make durable and solid improvements alike beneficial to himself and the, State. Some may talk againstit, and back their arguments with theories which have no practical' exposition. ' Others may bring 'in a bill to provide against poverty. Would they give it a status, they must nationalise the land, that the people may have that reversional right' which is theirs by nature, and by every principle of duty and honour. Has Major Atkinson never observed that the majority subsist by the mere accidents of life, work or no w,ork. as chance may be, ever subi ject to those inevitable contingencies which are „-a certain, consequence of the vicissitudes of ' trade ? Would he have them make bricks, and withhold the wherewith to make them ? This, to say the least, is a lamentable characteristic of refined selfishness. Even should rich and poor alike contribute, allowing, as now, the , personalisation of the land would make easy 'to the one class that in too many cases would prove a great hardship to the other. Granting ' the nationalisation of the land would provide, a sure fund, for every contingency, securing, as it would, the 'rever^ sional right of every individual in the State. It may be argued that this mode of procedure would act unfairly — that the rich would not require it. Sir, such objection is only imaginary. By energy, business ability, and the accidents of trade, men may lawfully become rich. Not so by the vile usurpation of our common rights. Regulated by the law of 'supply and demand, the masses must of necessity ever be the largest contributors under these conditions : they could afford to be so, since their reveisionary interests would be secured^ reacting as it would throughout all the ramifications of society, giving vigour and stability to all its proceedings.

The mind gifted with reflection cannot but conjecture what may be the opinions in years to come of the legislation of New Zealand should they persistently ignore the foregoirg principle. With every advantage calculated t o make a free and happy people, amongst whom poverty and crime need have no place— their splendid lands frittered away, borrowed millions like a leaden nightmare^ weighing on Jin overtaxed people, denied their just rights ; the means of, repayment secured by companies and others, many of whom never saw nor ever will see New Zealand, whose lands have risen to enormous values by the very means it should have been the first care of the State to protect. Sir, when will these irregularities cease, which certainly are either the outcome of incapacity, blamable neglect, or otherwise? In the interests of our common brotherhood, in the interests of order, of honour, and of every known faculty that can stir the nobler precepts of our nature, I again protest against the lands being sold, and challenge any of our legislators on technical grounds to show cause why they should be. Mind you, I do not accept custom as a precedent, but something real and tangible, which I know cannot be found. If our Legislature apply strictures for the good of society in the administration of our common laws, how much more apply strictures to a matter of such vital importance as the land question ! Do they suppose that the people are so shallow-brained and so very incapable as not to see through such flimsy objections as those advanced by Mr Weston or Mr Hall, which at the best betray their utter want of experience by way of detail as applied to the leasing and working of leaseholds ? Sir, a flow of rabid eloquence never yet stormed the citadel of Reason, which still rears her head in proud defiance of all sinister expressions and endeavours. In conclusion, I observe, Would our Legislature do honour to the occasion by no longer sinking the gravity thereof into a scum of ridicule, would they leave their mark upon this era, would they contribute to the prosperity of the people, would they live' in the memories of many whose voices have as yet not uttered a sound, let them do the people justice— not in the half-hearted, way represented in our school endowments, which admits the principle but denies the application to the fullebt extent which this justice demands ?— I am, &c,

Joseph Sandiands,

July 22nd,