LAND TENURE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2604, 10 February 1904, Page 11

LAND TENURE.

It may be suggested to the members of Parliament who have assumed to themselves the task of essaying to educate public opinion on the subject of land tenure that, before they speak in Dunedin at the meeting they are advertised to address this week, they should endeavour to form for themselves a common platform, which should show the electors what they would propose the State should actually do in. respect to its treatment of the land question. The one point upon which they seem to be united consists in their denunciation of the freehold i enure, because, as they choose to affirm, its maintenance will lead to the aggregation of large estates and to the creation in the colony of agrarian evils similar to those that have afflicted some older countries. The argument, it may be remarked in passing, is most fallacious and disingenuous, because it is part and parcel of the case in favour of the extension to the Crown tenant of the right to acquire the freehold of his land that stringent provision shall be made to prevent the aggregation of properties in the hands of a limited number of holders. What, however, do the so-called land reformers propose* to put in place of the freehold tenure? The land la.ws of the colony at present offer to the person who desires to secure a farm from the Crown the option of buying outright, of taking it under a license to occupy ■with the right of purchasing at the original upset price after the expiry of ten years, and of taking a lease in perpetuity. From this general plan, properties that are opened for selection under the Land for Settlements Act are excluded, the only tenure under which they arei obtainable being that of the lease in perpetuity. The alternative, conse>quently, that is offered by the Crown to a tenure enabling the holder of the land to become its absolute owner is a lease in perpetuity. But Mr T. E. Taylor, who is one of the foremost opponents of the freehold tenure, de.clared at Christchurch that the lease in perpetuity is "points worse than the freehold!" It is. in his opinion, '

" less a land policy than a form of national insanity." That being Mr Taylor's view, he is, we must conclude, a. root-and-branch reformer, who would sweep away the lease in perpetuity with even less compunction than he would shew in destroying the other features of the colony's optional system. And in this respect he is probably in agreement with Mr Fo-wlds, who, in the course of his address at the opening of the land reform campaign, as it is somewhat grandiloquently termed, betrayed the lengths to which the agitation in which he is engaged may be carried if sufficient support is accorded to it by the public. "He thought,"' he said, " that there had been too much talk of tenure that evening. Tenure was a mere side issiie to the great question of land monopoly." Mr Fowlds entertains, we know, a cheerful belief in the virtues of the single tax, by the instrumentality of which he would have the State confiscate the full unimproved value of the land; and if this is the aim which those who ai'e associated with him in the present agitation have before them it is well that the electors in the country districts should know so that they may realise the exact scope of the demands of the reformers. Certainly, if it is a sound contention, as advanced by Mr Taylor, Mr Fcwlds, and their friends, that the system of private ownership of land is mischievous, the logical conclusion toi which it leads is not only that the sale of public estate to Crown tenants should be prevented but that the State should acquire the land, the unimproved value of which exceeds seventy millions, now held by private owners in the colony. But if the acquisition, by the State of the privately-owned land is impracticable, it would surely be a monstrously unjust thing that the owners of snug little properties in the towns 1 should withhold from Crown tenants an equal opportunity of securing for themselves land that shall be rent free for leaving to their children after them. By what right do Mr Fowlds and his associates de v maud that the prospect of the privilege of sitting tinder his own vine and fig tree on a property whez*e he

shall be immune from visits from Government inspectors shall be denied to the State tenant? Because, Mr Fowlds asserts in a sonorous and specious sentence, '" the land of every country belongs to the people of thai country, and one generation has no right to sell the land a.way from the next. 1 ' But, if we were to accept this pronouncement in the most literal sense, it would still be quite clear that the cultivation of communally-owned property would have to be performed by individuals, and the State would, as a matter of practical expediency, find It necessary to- divide up its rural lands among certain of its members. That is virtually what has happened and what is happening; and it is in the arrangement of the terms on which this division should be effected that _the question of tenure becomes important. Whether under tlie leasehold or the freehold tenure, however, the State obtains from the occupier such a payment as recognises its interest. From the leaseholder it collects its rent and upon the free-

holder it levies taxation which may be and will be maintained at such a level as will prevent the aggregation of large estates. From either point of view the interest of the State in the land is recognised. But it is to the advantage of the State that its land shall be cultivated and improved in a high degree. And experience has shown that the freehold system is that which offers the farmer most encouragement to expend his best energies in the cultivation of his property. As Mr Taylor says, everything that is desirable is associated with the possession of land. From this point of view it would, it might be thought, be a wise policy on the part of the State to facilitate the conversion of its leaseholds into moderatel}'-sized freehold properties. But Mr Taylor and his colleagues profess to have discovered that the Crown tenants wish to* acquire the freehold of their lands at the original upset values, and thus to secure for themselves the whole of the unearned increment. We are not aware that this demand has been made. Mr Massey's proposal, at anyrate, does not contemplate any siich concession :

it aims at putting the holder of the

lease in perpetuity as nearly as possible en the same footing as the holder of the license with a. piirchas- ' ing right, and thus at treating him as having taken up his land on a

5 per cent, instead of on a. 4 per

cent, basis. The question of the details of the terms upon which the con-

cession of the right to acquire the freehold may be granted has, however, never yet been exhaustively discussed : the principle only has so far been in issue. It is premature, therefore, for Mr Ta}-lor and Mr Laurenson to inveigh against the breach of iaith in which, they argue, the Crown tenants would involve themselves if they were allowed to acquire the freehold on the basis of the original contract. But if Mr Laurenson wishes us to believe that, as he asserts, the Government, tenants do net themslves desire the freehold of their land, we are at a loss to understand why the present agitation should have been instituted or why the tenants should be charged with conspiring to violate the terms of their agreement with the State. If the Crown tenants do not want the freehold, then Mr Taylor, Mr Fowlds, and Mr Laurenson must be wasting their breath in arguing so strenuously as they are doing against the concession by the State of the right to its lessees to acquire their properties.