The Wanganui Chronicle, AND PATEA-RAGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1890. DISTRAINT FOR RENT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXVIIII, Issue 12127, 15 May 1896, Page 2

The Wanganui Chronicle, AND PATEA-RAGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1890. DISTRAINT FOR RENT.

A series of articles undor the general heading of "Thoughts on Politics," ia , being contributed to the New Zealand Herald.' by Mr F. G. Bwington, a well-known and able writer on political questions in Auckland. Mr Ewington's article on " Distraint for Rent," is so much, to the point that wo here reproduce ifc in its entirety : — _ . The Honourable R. J. tSoddon, in his speech at Hokitika on 201 b ultimo, included in the Government programme the abolition of distraint for rent. His motives, no doubt, aro good. He wants to benefit the poor, but he will assuredly injure them. All history has proved that such legislative interference as that now proposed, works out the very opposite effect to thafc intended. Many of the political experiments being tried here now have been tried in other countries and found wanting over and over again, and the poor have been the principal sufferers. So they will be in this caso. First of all then, if the proposed measure becomes law, landlords will require tenantß to pay rent monthly in advance, or that fhe rent be guaranteed by known and responsible persons. Tho Legislature is not omnipotent. It cannot compel capitalists to orect houses to be let. Those who might, if left alone, invest their money,' in building houses, certainly would not do so if harassed witli many restrictions. Therefore houses would be fewer and rents highor ; only the better class of houses would be built, and therefore the poor would bo most inconvenienced. Secondly, the proposed Act is unnecessary. It is a mistake to imagine that tho present law of distraint is abused or oppressive. I can write with some authority, having had 29 years experience in businesß and Bemi-public life. We do not distrain in 3 per ceut of our houses per annum ; and I feel protty sure the other estate agents would say that thafc is about their own average too. Distraining is a painful, troublesome, and expensive nuisance, seldom resorted to unless fraud or wilful destruction of property be suspected. A tenant who is " dead broke " is generally i notified to quit, and wished good speed, but he sometimes artfully stipulates that his cartage is paid— which is then _one from Hobson's choice. Tenants are quite able v to take caro of themselves ; it is the landlords who need protecting. Somo tenants bum mantlepieces, wainscottiug, fencing, and otherwise shamefully destroy property. Now, the threat of distraint pan be made, and generally it is all that is necessary, but if landlords a,_o to be given over entirely to the mercy of tenants, then they ivill bo very .careful who they let into their hous.s, Thirdly, if the landlord's remedy by distress is a *' barbarous " measure, is it less barbarous when the holder of a bill of sale, or a judgment creditor restrains? And if it be not less barbarous, then is it intended to abolish their power also? 'If not, why not . The holder of a

bill of sale bas now, under tbe Chattel Transfer- Act of 1889, only / an implied power to distrain, just as \ a landlord with a weekly tenant has. ( "When the tradesman sells his goods , on credit there is no covenant for distraint. If it be intended to ( abolish only tho landlords right, j tbat will be unfair. When debtors • owe tradesmen money the latter^can stop credit 'immediately and with-, hold their goods to save increase of debt, and if the customers take the gooda away without consent the law would imprison them ; but a tenant can defy a landlord, and by refusing to vacate a house can compel tho landlord to let him (the tenant) get deeper into debt. Mr Seddon looks npon the seen only, and forgets the unseen. He sees, as the result of bis proposed law, a landlord prevented from restraining, but he fails to look a little farther ahead, as every statesman should, and Bee : tlie evil efEects upon "isrie poor by landlords and tradesmen refusing to give a little credit, especially in times of sickness and intermittent work. But again, Mr Seddon's argument is that distraint for rent mnst be abolished, because it is a " piece of barbarism." Let us soe if the, argument holds good only or specially in this ' ca^e. If -a house be mortaged and a tenant will not pay his rent, and consequently tlie mortgagor cannot pay his^nterest, is it less babarous that the mortgagee should distrain upon the mortgator's furniture? If not, will the law., abolish distress in that*, case also ? If the law do abolish ifc, wlio will then lend on mortgage? and who, in prospect of such a law; wouldfail to call up his-mortgage ? Again, with sucb a public utterance fresh in people's memory will Crown tenants not consider themselves secure against "this piece of barbarism?" A sister colouy has aheady bad to sponge out £500,000 arrears of ground rent. And are the settlers here who are borrowing Government money on their homesteads to bo -secured by law against "this pice of barbarism" if they do not pay their interest? And if a Bill abolishing tbis piece of barbarism" be carried into law, what will then become of colonial credit and revenue. But-further, if distress by legal process is»a "piece of barbarism," is it less so when levied by Government officials ? And if not, is the proposed law to apply to Harbour Boards, Borough Councils, Educa : tion Boards and other local bodies, to prevent them from the "barbarism "of distraint ? Ancl if it do apply all round, then what remedy Avill be left, and how will the said bodies meet thoir financial engagements ? And does J& Seddon intend that the .arrears of land tax, plus 10 per cent, fine, shall not be Sued and distrained for? And as regards the Bankof New Zealand, wbich is now a Stato Bank in embryo, will it be less barbaiious if. it puts in a distress warrant and seizes a farmer's sbeep and crops, or a tradesman's stock and furniture ? Andifjit be not less barbarous, will the law prevent " this piece of bar: barism " also ? But if it do, what thenr 1 }VouU John Bull, our mortgagee, be prevented from tbo "barbarism" of sending out from. England a bum. bailiff alias an Official Kerjciver, to wind us up ?'-. T question whother • our entiro fleet, -'. the Hinemoa, could sweep the Australian squdron from tho sea. 'The fact is, the Premier, many of whose qualities I admire as of the j ablest member of the Cabinet, has never adequately thought the matter out, ancl statesmen can'uot think great public questions out when they are harassed resisting attacks to hold place and pay, any more than working men can think these things out while they are harassed in keeping the wolf from the door and I making both ends meet at home. Hence the rich with leisure should fulfil their political obligation, and think on theso things ; and if thoy do not clo so, we shall drift to political perdition. Make the place and pay of Cabinets safe for a given time, and statesmen will find themselves tranquil enough to look belcw the surface of things, not only at the seen, but also at the unseen ancl eternal foundation principles, on which societies, politics, economics, and law rest.