TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMARU HERALD.

Timaru Herald, Volume IV, Issue 107, 1 June 1866, Page 3

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMARU HERALD.

Si k, — On reading m your issue of today, the speech of our proposed member for Gernldine, I am much disappointed, to find he is an advocate of Mr. Traver's land scheme, and at ouce humbly protest, against such being 1 a favored policy of the district, and that, if the election became contested, on that ground alone, Mr. Ormsb} r would lose his seat; for when the question becomes fairly argued, how very uncertain becomes, the amount of good to be derived, supposing it succeeds even; but supposing it does not succeed (and no partial success is sufficient) the mischief will be irremediable. I feel myself pefectly incompetent to undertake an argument against the land policy Mr. Ormsby has adopted, but m the hope, that even, from so feeble an opposition as one voice raised against it, it may lead many to think for themselves, I will endeavour to point out, one or two weak points, m Mr. Ormsby's arguments, m favor of altering the land regulations m Canterbury. There is no doubt, that the policy of Mr. Travers with regard to the altering the Waste Land Regulations will seriously affect our power of obtaining loans, for have we not shown, (by tolerating such an idea) that when ail other sources fail, such a line of policy may be adopted to turn our good security into even a small amount of cash, for present requirements; and who will be likely, to advance us money on such security as our waste lands m such a questionable position, and shall we keep our security more safe, by sending men into the Council, pledged to such a line of policy ? Mr. Ormsby begins by saying, That-A<? considers the\ time has arrived when, the Waste Lands of the colony should be classified into agricultural and pastoral, and that while the former should be sold at £2 an acre, the latter should be sold at its marketable value (that is to say what it will fetch) or m other words, Mr. Ormsby has come to the conclusion, that now is the time that we should slay the goose, and grasp the golden egg- ; a little further he says me are letting land, at present, for 12* M, per hundred acres ana therefore, lending squatters capital at sue and three quarters per cent, at a time when we wanted to borrow \at seven per cent. And does Mr. Ormsby see no value m holding on our estate, even though we have to pay, ± per cent interest (the difference between Gf and seven per cent) more than the squatters pay, by holding -the estate, till through

the progress of the colony, improvements will be gradually be carried into those districts, m which the land would then more readily have purchasers, at two pounds an acre. And how would the case be, supposing a large amount of pastoral land could be sold, at one pound an acre ; has he not, by his own argument shown, that the squatters, are paying all the interest, on the land they occupy, but one quarter per cent, even rated at two pounds an acre ; and therefore for every 100 acres we could sell at £1 an acre, the colony would lose three and a quarter per cent, per annum of its income; the squatters now pay and lose the increased value, to the extent of fifty per cent, besides. To the smaller purchasers, to whom this cheap land clap trap is generally directed, I would ask if you can honestly believe, that the heing able to acquire 40 acres, m the back or pastoral district, m the place of twenty m the front, would be any compensation to you for the loss of a near market for your crops, remuneration for your labor, schools for your children, and all those other advantages attendant on civilisation ; for if it is difficult to carry on the necessary improvements m the front, where two pounds an acre, is paid for the land ; what improvements will you be likely to get, m a district where only one pound an acre is paid. I think it will be clearly seen, that this change m the price of the waste lands is not m favor of the poor man. Another serious disadvantage to the land purchaser, and the colony, if such a system was adopted, is the increased facility for spotting. Who has not heard of the spotting of the squatters ? and we all know, they spot the best of the land. By the proposed alteration m the price of the land, squatters would be able to spot to double the extent they do now, for the same amount of money expended. The colony would lose fifty per cent, of its borrowing capabilities, and three and a quarter per cent, per annum of its income, on every purchase, of a hundred acres. Mr. Ormsby goes on to say, Assuming that a million of money would be necessary for the purposes oj' public works, the interest on which, at seven per cent, mould amount to £70,000, and payable too, exclusively, by the present generation, leaving the next generation m possession, at no expense, of works of vtility and permanence. As Mr. Ormsby has allowed no sinking fund m his calculation, I should imagine we shall leave to posterity the original cost of those permanent works of utility he mentions, and with confidence, we may leave that debt for a future generation to pay ; for so long, as the land remains unsold, at two pounds an acre, are not the squatters paying theintereston the loan, and will not the expending the million he proposes to borrow, so enhance the value of the security, that a future generation, will only be to glad to purchase land at two pounds an acre, what, m the unimproved state of the outlying districts, it is now proposed, to sacrifice for one. There is no doubt there will come a time (far distant let us hope) when, although adjoining lands are occupied, the land will no longer fetch two pounds an acre. But when that time will come, no man can tell, for it depends entirely on the amount of money that can be spent m the outlying districts ; as easy communication may make those lands, twenty miles off, as valuable, as those now five with the present improvements. And I would remind Mr. Ormsby, that the land he paid two pounds an acre for, the other day, was considered a few years ago (with the advantages it then had) too dear to purchase, at ten shillings. The whole question, after all lies m a nut shell, for the case is exactly this — whether is it better, to improve an estate, and sell it, at its increased value, or to sell it, at a fifty per cent depreciation on its supposed value, and improve qfterwards,fromj : unds arising therefrom, for the benefit of the purchaser. I am &c, Hai Hai Tai Moana.