THE LAND BILL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13293, 23 May 1907, Page 6

THE LAND BILL.

FARMERS IN OPPOSITION

MEETING AT GERALDINE

Messrs Cooper anil Sheat, representatives of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, are now touring Canterbury in a campaign against, the Land Bill. Mr Cooper, a North "Islander," has addressed numerous meetings in. the North Island; Mr Sheat is a Dunsandel farmer, and a member of ■the executive of the (North) Canterbury Fanners' Union.

A Herald" reporter had a talk with Messrs Cooper and Sheat at Geraldine yesterdav. They said that they had had satisfactory meetings at Ashburton, Ruapuua and" Temnka; they had been well received, and a resolution against the Land Bill had been carried at each meeting. Their meeting at Temuka, they said, was the most interesting they had had, because there was an organised opposition, which might have carried an opposing amendment had not several member:-; of the opposition endeavoured to explain themselves, and the reply of the delegates showed that the suporters of the amendment- had been arguing from false premises; the meeting saw that, and carried the affirmative resolution. The chief point discussed was the "endowment" policy, and the idea appeared to have been disseminated that the proposed endowments would afford a relief to taxation. The delegates showed that this was not the case: the total amount of revenue from, the proposed would be a mere fraction of the total cost of the three departments that the endowments were to be allotted to —education, charitable aid, and old age pensions; the revenue from the land went into the consolidated fund now in relief of taxation and could only go in ©nee; and the only difference the adoptions of the proposal could make would be to increase the cost of account-keep-ing. A good many of the Temuka people appeared to have been misled by the s&ving-in-tax&tion fallacy. A meeting was held at Geraldine yesterday afternoon, but it was rather a small one, as it had to awaiit the conclusion of a big stock sale, so. that it was 5 o'clock before, it could begin, and most of the fanners were then leaving for home. There were between 30 and 40 present, and the Mayor, Mr J. Maling presided. Mt Cooper stated the three chief principles of the Land Bill: (1) reserving- all remaining Crown lands as perpetual endowments for education, old age pensions, and charitable aid;. (2) limiting the areaj to be held by present owners to £50,000 worth of unimproved value, and future purchases to £15,000 worth; (3) restricting all future tenures of Crown land to a renewable 66 years' lease. He had himself been a ]«:!••- c-sn-perpetusty settler in the North Island, and had discovered the disadvantages of that system compared with the freehold and the deferred payment systems. The occupier under either of these tenures could borrow more freely for the purchase of stock, and this was one. of the principal reasons for demanding the freehold. He denied that there was any unearned increment worth talking about in country lands, as increase ,in unimproved value must come from the ?ettlers own efforts, or his own expenditure, as an individual and in cooperation with his neighbours, and the increased value .thus made enabled the settlers to borrow still more ,for further improvements. The 66 years' lease would not provide security for a lender, sufficient to enable a poor occupier to make a success of his holding, the valuations of improvements never equalling their cost; usually they were not more than one-third of the cost. He anticipated that the lands to be leased as endowments would be taken up by capitalists, and probably most cf •them would lie unoccupied after money had been spent on roading them. He .id-imt-ted that the proposal to allow tenants to pay off some proportions of the value of a holding, had a good pornt in it, in the removal of cropping restrictions after 50 per cent, had been paid off, but. there were very obvious drawbacks. The State would allow only per cent, on the money; and propose to retain any portion of the money as compensation for alleged deterioration of the land. He condemned the conditions under which the lease-in-perpetuity tenure could be converted into freehold, as it would deprive the settler of the values of unseen improvements and compel him' to compete in the open market for the home he had made for himself. He saw in this proposal a hint at a universal Fair Rent Bill, to confiscate all increases in unimproved values. As the settlers had made these increases tliey w-tre entitled to have them, and this cquul be secured by letting them buy the land at the original value. The Minister talked of providing plenty of freeholds by his new bursting up policy; but the conditions would prevent poor nien getting any of them; capitalists would be the only purchasers. He anticipated f.'liat one result would be an increase in intere:-t rates, through withdrawals of capital now lent on mortgage, and this would lilt the small man harder than the Land Bill would hit the big one; it would check improvements, and tluit world hit the workers. The advances to settlers scheme had been a great help in the past, but with the reduction of the settler's interest in. his holding the value on which advances could be made would be cut down to a practically useless level. Mr Cooper discussed the figures regarding hmd areas as given by the Minister of Lands, pointing out that, apart from native .lands, there was only about 2,000,acres suitable for : etdement; and regal ding native lands he expressed a strong dislike of proposals that would make a. body of Maori landlords over white tenants. The Lands for .Settlement system should be retained and vigorously applied, and not put aside as if it had served its purpose, while there were so many large estates yet available for cutting up. The limitation proposals wouid reduce them, but the wrong class of men would be favoiued by the new" scheme. The Land for Settlements scheme should be amended however, by giving the new occupier the right of purchase. The freehold was the attraction which was drawing so many thousands to Canada, and it was freeholders who had made New Zealand so prosperous. The endowment scheme was characterised as a blind, a fraud, and a hope to induce the unwary to accept the other provisions of the Land Bill. There •was nothing to be gained by it, except from the Socialist's or land nationalised point of view. The forced limitation of holdings would probably prove to be only the thin end of a wedge; the precedent being set, the limit might be further and further reduced in future.

.Mr Klieat- also spoke, and moved —" That :io system of land tenure is in the best, interests, of the colony that does not embrace the option of freehold." Mr Maslin seconded the motion, and congratulated the speakers on their lucid and comprehensive address. Mr E. Murphy moved as an amendment —"That this meeting approve of the Government Land Hill."'

Hie amendment lapsed for want of a seconder.

Mr P. Mulvihill spoke at some length to the motion, which was (hen put and carried, with one dissentient.