LEASEHOLD v. FREEHOLD.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 12857, 24 December 1912, Page 8

LEASEHOLD v. FREEHOLD.

MR. tEITCH REPLIES TO MR LEWIS. !

Yesterday morning we published a letter by Mr. A. H.< Lewis, criticising the attitude of Mr. Veitch, M.P., in regard to the land question.. Mr, Veitch ■was seen by a "Chronicle" reporter last evenig, and asked if he wished to make a reply. Mr. yeitch expressed his -willingness, and did so briefly. "The land question is the most important of all questions," said Mr. Ve-' itch. " Mr. Lewis is, entitled to the thanks of the community for having brought the matter forward for discussion. In his letter he discusses merely one phase of the amendments to the Land Act carried this year. He deals only . with the right of purchase by holders of leases in perpetuity, when, as a matter of faqt, the Act provides for tho right of purchase 'by I/and for Settlement tenants and holders of. renewable, leases. When the Bill was before the House for discussion, I rais 7 , led my .principar objection when theclaiiso providing for holders of renewable leases ■ being given the right to purchase. . The principle of selling the people's land i s one to which'l and a, great many electors' of New. Zealand have raised serious objection, the/ seriousness of which proposal it is impossibJo to estimate. As far as the L.I.P. tenants are concerned, the freehold was" granted to them-to all intents and purposes when they were granted their 999 years lease. ,It was merely the freehold m disguise, and the granting to them of the right to purchase" is now more or less a matter of adjustment of accounts, although it is' objectionable on principle. This is, however, not the case in regard to the holders of renewable leases; in which case the unearned increment is not inseparably alienated from tenants. * Mr. Lewis must have known that I was.discussing the .entire Act, and not that portion of it ™lch ** ka s selected for discussion.. -Me .advocates of- selling the people^ land teff «is that the" leasehold fs to -be ■this steppmgstone- to; the ireenbld. I anoiild;iikp-Mr.. Lewis to say how we <ar* going to^ ttnd v land for^ne^orkers: n.ii> fe;^ptiin£ stone'has been sold.: '-•WjiJlr&ei deny that ivheri all the land'is -privately, downed 'the" >;po6r man; Svlio* wants.' land willhave- to pay "tho "p1 nee toiig^wrthout tho land? He &ft&;»! the:- Crown is :the only1 landldVd in ; Dominion wlneh has granted such bad' leases... ,• J£;this ■> is so, does- this; not pr/jy-ethat-tlrd Crowd tenants-are better" trfeated than/dthev tenants' of private^ landlords, and >that therefore the ten-* ants, pi private-landlords-have a ■better 'claim to freehold than the Crdwn tenantsJiave? Yet Mr. Lewis is advo--eating the principle which f must' inev---IfeT-°W- *he Cr «WJtr teha-Rt "and substitute the tenant of;-.%private land-: lord. ■•;With regard to the 1T.1.P.-.-;ten--ants, if Mr. Lewis' figures. prove any-■^"S'-i-■ y P roye ™t tne measure,, which .has been .boomed throughout the country, as one: which is to, materially benefit the Crown; tenants, will in real-' yxZnvolve t, hem ia': considerable doss « t? oy.PHrWaso 'under the provisions or the_Act, for he has gone to a great deal of trouble to' prove that the State will reap a handsome.benefit from the transaction. The sale of Crown lands . I. n.™ e--pa«t has involved New. .Zealand in _enormous losses—losses which it is quite impossible to estimate to-day, and is it not reasonable to state that a further sale'of Crown lands will involve tho country in greater loss? It is to c Tn^ mbered ' tco that the Land Act ot 1912 is merely an instalment of the Government's' freehold policy."