NEWSPAPER COMMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8984, 18 July 1907, Page 2

NEWSPAPER COMMENT.

i.i'KOM (JUR UOBBJiSI'ONDtfHT.I WELLINGTON, July IS. Ihe New Zealand Times" refers editorially to the Government's land pulicy as follows:—"When Mr M'Nab. in a speech at Stratford, issued an advance statement of the Government's re-arranged land policy, he cooled to (.something like a normal temperature the overiieatod atmosphere in which the land controversy had until that time- been conducted. The Budget's amplification of details will complete the cooling process, and the country will no longer be agitated by a storm of contention over what wae made to seem a violently Radical programme, and the House- will be asked to discuss a plain and straightforward policy with nothing Radical or alarming about it. . . . In the original programme of the Government it was proposed that the State- should not relinquish ite ownership of the leaee-in-perpetuity holdings, but should offer special inducements to the tenants of those holdings to convert their tenure into renewable leases, with a tenure of 66 yeans. During the recess it has been made clear that the lessees-in-per-petuity are co conscious of their strong position that they can afford to roject the utmost that the State can offer in the way of a * leasehold proposal.' Bound to observe the ' sacrednoss of contract,' therefore, but equally bound to do something to rid the State of an I intolerably bad bargain, the Government has found it advisable to surrender the freehold in this case. Short i of tearing up the existing contracts, the Government could do nothing else. To ask for 'the present value' as the price of the freehold, would be merely to decide the lessees to hold fast to their leases. To give the freehold at the 'original value' is clearly impossible. There wa9, therefore, nothing to do but to pay the penalty of tie folly of long ago and grant the freehold at a value fixed by arbitration." The "Post" la6t evening, under the heading " A Bad Backdown," refers to the sturdy promises made by the memben? of the Government last session, and adds : —" Utter disappointment will, we are sure, be the general feeling among those who hoped meet from last year's Land Bill, as they read the feeble substitutes which are provided for several of its cardinal and most valuable provisions. To an increase of the Graduated Land Tax we are by no means averse, and it is likely to command a more general approval than the original proposals for tne direct limitation of the value or area of private estates, both as involving a smaller departure from established practice and as corresponding with the election declarations of the late Premier and others. But the difficulty with the graduated taxation is one not of principle but of degree, and the change can only escape being a backdown by making the increase severe enough to be as drastic in its operation as .the original provisions,. . . . We certainly see small ground for hoping that the result which the Minister of Lands anticipated from the £50,000 limitation will be realised in this way, viz., that 'two and a quarter million pounds' worth of unimproved # value will be put on the market during th« next ten years.' . . . We may be thankful, therefore, that something remains of last year's programme, but there is certainly little left to excite the enthusiasm of the land reformer.