Mr .James Allen and the Land Question.

Otago Witness, Issue 2761, 13 February 1907, Page 9

Mr .James Allen and the Land Question.

TO THI KDITOB. SiH, —Mr P. J. O'Regan was at one time a member of tlie House of Representatives. He has done me the honor to criticise in your paper my speech at Milton en the proposed Land Bill. I do not know that his criticism, if based on correct premises, would be very damaging, for after all it amounts to this: that Mr Allen has changed his mind but hae not explained why. It is somewhat a 6tretoh of the imagination to call that "euppressio veri." But suppose Mr Allen ha« nob " reversed his policy," nor "turned a complete somersault," nor entered into a " wholesale denunciation in 1907 of the principles he himself eupported in 1895 (I quote Mr O'Regan), then what truth has been suppressed and what explanation was necessary? The matter is perfectly simple and plain. I did not approve of the 999 years' lease when introduced, nor in 1896, nor do I believe in it now. I was and am in favour of shorter leases with periodical adjustments of rents if men prefer leasehold, and I wae, and still am, a believer in the right to obtain the freehold. Let me- quote my remarks in 1896 (Hansard toI. 92 p. 360): — "I may point out that we had the freehold and perpetual lease (not leaee-in-perpetuity) years ago. and the two worked well together. Hero were these two systems of freehold and perpetual lea6O existing side by 6ide, and the land of the colony wae settled under them, and no doubt satisfactorily settled." I still believe the shorter lease, 6omewhat similar to the perpetual lease, 13 fair for the tenant and for the Crown, and at the same time I still pin my faith to the hard-working settler having the right, if he thinks fit, to earn the reward of his long hour's, his hard work, his hardeliips, and many trials by securing for himself and his children a freehold and 6eoure home, and I am certain such an inducement is the best spur possible to men 6' energies, and results in the greatest benefit to the State. It is delightful to have Mr O'Regan in agreement with me, but he should be quite sure we do agree before he so writes, otherwise I may have to use those naughty words, •'jjuppre^sjo veri." He cays he quite agrees with me "as to the breakdown of the land for settlement scheme." Some newspaper must have been playing havoc with my words or Mr O'Regan has not been careful. I have not eaid the land for settlement echome hae broken down. It has boon abused as I judged it would: but, speaking generally, it has done good. What has mado the sehemo moio costly to tho State ha^ boon the action of the late Ministry (no doubt for politual reaeone) in interfornic: with the cutting up of estates by the owikts, stopping the owner doing this and purchasing themselves. If I mistake not, this is t\hat happened with one or mow of tl'c Asset's Board properties. So, much as I regret it, Mr O'Regan and I do nor agree on the " breakdown of land for settlement scheme."'—l am, etc., James Allen*. Dunedin, February 2. \