THE ACHES AND PAINS OF RHEUMATISM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7922, 29 January 1904, Page 4

THE ACHES AND PAINS OF RHEUMATISM.

« - What awful torture those aches and pains give! Who knows tltus better than the tortured victims of rheumatism ! But why suffer? There is a remedy at hand yours for half-a-cro'wn — t&at will completely wipe out rheumatism, gout lum-bao-o, sciatica, a-nd kindred 00/mplaints. • -Xake Rheumo, the scientific remedy — the m-ddcinie that 1 has driven away pain from many a suffering individual. Rheumo conquers rheumatism, kills the pain,, removes all swelling, and effects a cure generally within forty-eight hours. Sold by chemists and stores, at 2s 6d and 4s 6d per bottle. Wholesale agents : N.Z. Drug .Co. 2

connection with the old Crown lands let on that system there was now going on one cf the most insidious practices which* one could imagine, and which often entirely overthrew the so-called system of option. After having earned a little money, a man became disposed to acquire the freehold. In hundreds of cases it could be done, and was done, by throwing back tho land into the hands of a landlord. The landlord advertised the land for selection on the optional system. It could be taken then under any one of the three systems. The point was that the original land held under the lease-in-perpetuity system was a continually decreasing quantity, and, as had- 1 been shown, both the. other systems ended in the freehold. That was the way in which a Government which was -supposed to be conserving the public interests was actually allowing to slip from the hands* of the people ono of their most valuable assets. (A voice: Why do you support them?) Because he could not help himself. He had supported the Government only to this point:— He had -exercised his right- to judge the Government's proposals, and h e was glad to 'say. thait the verdict of the electors had shown, that his judgment had not been wrong. He did not think it ever would be wrong. The policy now bjjing carried nut was not the policy initiated by John Ballance. John Ballance had not had the opportunities that had come to his successor, but John Ballanice was ready to make use of them if they had. been available. The trouble was that John Ballance had never been in effice long enough to be thoroughly understood or appreciated. John Ballance's name ought to be spoken with reverence by every Liberal in New Zealand. (Applause). But the question was a great one, and, he could only lift a corner of the veil, and throw a ray of light . on the matter. He could say no more than that the present position was not creditalble to any Government. It might have been put right if John M'Kenzie had lived, but it was a far cry io the grave of that -statesman. Mr G. Laurenson, M.HJ3*,, said that the question upon whicV the campaign had been undertaken was whether the deliberate and wicked sale of the* little public estate left to the people should be allowed to continue. Among these who were taking part in. the campaign all political feelings and differences had been sunk, and had disappeared from sight. In other directions the same unity was displayed. In the colony's newspaper world, the "Evening^ Post," of Wellington was an uncompromising critic' of the present administration, and there-vwas no stronger supporter of it than the "Lyttelton Times." Yet those two journals were united in supporting the policy set forth that evening. In all earnestness, he said that the ' time would come when the people of the colony would thank the "Lyttelton Times" aaid the "Post" for what they were doing in connection with the land question for generations yet unborn. The question was not agitating New Zealand alone. Frederick Harrison had said that before many years had passed it woidd become the burning question in the United Kingdom, throughout tho British Empire, and throughout Angio-Saxondom, and that it never would be settled until it was- placed on a moral basis ; and it did not rest on a moral basis at present. He asked if it was right to sell national reserves for educational and similar purposes. No sane man would defend such an idea. Therefore, why should they sell the reserves that belonged to the people as a whole? At a meeting of the Lands Committee of the House of Representatives, last session, a "petition had been presented by some settlers at Wyndham, in Southland, asking for permission to turn their leaseholds of educational reserves into freeholds. No man would support- -such a petition, but the outcome of it was the demand now being made upon the State. An impudent and an untruthful statement had been, made repeatedly that the Crown lessees were demanding the freehold. It .was the money-lenders who wanted the freehold systeui. (Hear, hear). He quoted the

opinion of Mr G. Forbes, of Cheviot, a Government tenant, in support of hi* views. He wanted to show how the public estate was being dissipated, and he had! prepared a few figures to illustrate the point, and show, without amy doubt what was really going on at the present time. During the year ending March 31, 1903, the colony let with* the right of purchase 118,556 acres of land at an average capital value of lis Id an acre ; it kt under the perpetual lease /system 108,065 acres, at an average capital •value of 13s 4d an acre; and it sold for cash 16,747 acres, at an average oapital ' value of 18s 3d an acre. The total was 243,368 acres, at an average of 12s lfd. During the same year tho colony bought under the Land for Settlements Ait 152,032 acres, rut an average cost, of £3 135. 5 dan acre. In other words, it was selling land at 12s l*d an acre, and was buying back at £3 13s 5d J n acre. But he wanted to show how the question affected Canterbury. He wanted to drive into the people hero the fact that vhey should show they were worthy of the sacrifices made on their behalf in-, the days gone by. They should agitate, agitate, agitate, as Daniel O'Connell had said ; but they should also educate, educate, educate. Well, since 1899, while all ihe rest of the colony had been increasing ;the number of its settlers, Canterbury had decreased hers by 112. A twelfth of the land in Canterbury was held by 23 people. That province had 60 estates of over 20,000 acres in extent; Auckland had 25, and Taranaki had none, Twenty years ago Banks Peninsula had a population of 4020. To-day its population was 3669. a decrease of 351. In the Wainui Road District there wero 54,152 acres, 256 ratepayers, and a fifth of the district was held* by three people. In Okains Road District there were 16,836 acres, 99 ratepayers, and a fourth,* of the district was held by one family. In Pigeon Bay there were 22,225 acres, 51 ratepayers, and a half was held by two people. There was no need' to emphasise these figures. They must appeal to all human beings who could think. Every man and woman interested in this colony sliould consider the position disclosed by Return B — 20, presented to Parliament., It showed that there were 115,713 landowners in the colony, and they owned land of the unimproved value of £70,524,604. Of that number, 71,978 were owners of town lands, 37,007 owned country lands, and, 6728 owned* both towii and country lands. Ninetenths of these landowners owned a quarter of the land of the country, and onertenth owned the other three quarters. In other words, a quarter of the land of New Zealand was held among 98_- per cent of the population, while 1£ per cent owned threequarters. The total area of the colony was 67,0-10,640 acres. The area now left in the hands of the Crown, including barren and worthless lands and lands let on pastoral license, was 19,160,564 acres. The river-beds, lakes and barren mountain tops occupied 8,000,000 acres, and if that area was deducted from the other there would be left 11,160,564 acres. If divided among the present population, there would be less than fourteen acres per head. That position had arisen in not much more than half a century of settlement. . What would occur in 100 years, when the population would be 8,000,000? The land monopoly, he maintained, was crushing the people into the towns. The people wanted the land, and they wanted to go into the country. Let the Government throw up any estate, and they would have applicants by the score. In conclusion, he said that the campaign was merely a preliminary one. It was hoped that it would be arranged so as to reach every town and village in the colony. It was realised that the opposition, in spite, of the capitalistic support it received, would soon melt away, as melted the wintry streams in summer. (Applause. ) Mr G. Fowlds, M.H.R., said that times .had of Me bec-n too good for the people of the colony to take a very live interest in such a matter as the land question. Reform ijever made much progress while the people's. pockets were full, and the prosperity of the colony had- therefore been to some extent a bar to reform. Parliament had put through much- labour legisla/tion, which, no doubt, had been productive of ai great deal of good., but he doubted whether this legislation had materially affected the prosperity of the people as a whole. The colony owed its prosperity to causes not brought- about by legislation, and while wages were -higher, there had been a corresponding rise in the price of the things the wages -had to buy. Judged by the standard of the actual benefits resulting, the legislation- hadi. h.ot done .anything like what it should have done for the colony. The fact was that the people, although they had possessed the power to legislate just as they pleased, had not known what was good for them, and the object of the campaign* commeno&l that evening was to teach them what they should do. in regard to the land question. The land-owner was the only person in the community who got something for nothing,- and if someone got something for nothing, somebody else had to get nothing for something. Manna no longer fell from heaven ; it came from the land, and the land-owner, without earning it, picketed the greater part. He thought that there had been too much talk of tenure thait evening. Tenure was a mere side-is-sne to the great question of land monopoly. Land monopoly meant that someone had power over his fellows, power 'io extract something from the people without giving' anything in return. Land ownership gave a man a hold iipon the people which enabled him to live for all time upon their labour. There had been a man in Auckland who had years before bought some land for £70. He had lived outside the colony ever since, enjoying re-venue from that land, and now it was worth £7000. In that sort of thing lay the evil rather than in any. parr ticuiar form of tenure. It was clear, however, that the people who demanded the freehold for the State tenant should logically demand it for the private tenant.: If it was wrong for the State to enjoy the benefits of* ownership, it was also wrong for the citizen to do so. He could not see that there was veiy much difference between the freeholder and the holder of the lease- in perpetuity without' revaluation. The leaseholder paid only 4 per cent on the original value of his holding, and could secure this on Govetnment bonds if he had enough money to buy the freehold. He was, moreover, free from land-tax, Tlie fact of the whole matter was that the sale of laud for all time was absurd. The land of every country belonged to the people of that country, and one generation had no *rijght to self the land away from, the next. There

was no similarity between land and labour product's, which were the exclusive property of the producer. Yet in New Zealand less than half the families had any financial interest* in the land. During the past ten years there had been an* increase in the land values of the colony amounting to £16,000,000, caused by the labour and expenditure of the people generally. Yet it * was all taken by the land-owners, £11,000,000 of ; ifc by some 12,000 people j_ holding large sections. It was either right or wrong for land-owneis to take this unearned increment. If it was right, the . people would have to grin and bear it. But if it was wrong, they should rise up in their strength and sweep away an unfair system. The land values of New Zealand increased by some £2,500,000 annually, and the people should take their share of this by means of a proper land tax. At present landless , people had to pay ior every public service twice over. They paid first in the shape of rent, because landlords could not charge such large rents except for the public services, and 'again in the shape of direct and indirect taxes. Mr G. W. Russell said that during the past ten years the colony had parted absolutely with the freehold of one and a half million acres of land. The people had more reason to be afraid of the Government than of any agitation by the Farmers' Union. The main responsibility for the tremendous sales of Crown lands rested on the Premier, who any time during the past ten years had been in a position to follow in the steps of the late Mr John Ballance, and give the colony a Liberal land policy that would stop, the sale of the colony's estate and provide for the periodical revaluation of its leases. Mr Ballance had inaugurated a policy intended to assist the poor man to make a home for himself. The present Government had developed it into a scheme for enabling farmers to increase their holdings. The chairman invited any opponents of the motion to address the. meeting, but | none responded. ' * The motion was" then put and carried i unanimously. ( | Mr Russell further moved— "(l) That in the opinion of this meeting all further i leases in perpetuity should be subject to I periodical revaluation " ; " (2) that all leas- ! Ed land should be subject to a land tax." These motions were seconded by Mr Ell and carried unanimously. The meeting then closed.