THE LAND QUESTION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVI, Issue 29, 9 November 1888, Page 29

THE LA ND QUESTION.

We have been requested to publish the following as bearing on an interesting question of the day :—: —

TO THE EDITOE OP THE " DAILT TIMES."

Sir, — With your permission I would like to place before your readers a few ideas suggested by reading several of your leaders on or in relation to the land question, published during the last few weeks. I have less diffidence in addressing you on this subject, as I am satisfied that you thoroughly appreciate its importance in regard to the influence which a wise adjustment of the difficulties which at present ?xist between owners ani occupiers of land is certain to have on our future prosperity, and th. it the adjustment in the public interests of these difficulties must soon be one of the most important matters for Parliament to' deal with ; and it is with the hope that other 3 possessed of more leisure, knowledge, and ability may devote these useful qualities to the service of the public by thoroughly discussing this subject, so that a just and efficient means may be found to remove the present and prevent future deadlocks arising between owners and occupiers of land that I address you. In your leader of the Bth dealing with this question, you conclude that because one of our largest money lending institutions has decided to cut its losses all our difficulties will wo k right by the force of circumstances. In this I cannot agree with you. Your idea presupposes that outside capitalists, induced by low prices, will come in and purchase the properties of bankrupt occupiers in the hands of money lenders. Yon overlook the tact that the same causes which have produced the collapse here have had the same effects elsewhere, and tnat bargains, or what would have been considered such in times past, are now to be had all over the world, in such localities as have been depending on the Bri ish markets to consume their surplus produce. Outside ot the difficulty of obtaining tne parties with the necessary means to purchase these properties, you are apparently unconcerned. The fact that present occupiers have in many cases invested the labours of a lifetime in making a home for themselves and families, and which they will lose, should your idea of new men be carried out, is perhaps too sentimental in its nature to be worthy of consideration ; but it is well worth the public's while to consider whether they willjnot more speedily put an end to the difficulty by granting present occupiers a secure tenure at reasonable ieuts, than by taking their chance of capturing 6tray capitalists who may wander to our shores.

Judging from one portion of yLur leader in your issue of October 8, where you sa> , rcfemng to moitpages, "It is pa'eiit they have the light to do wbai they plea ewith their own," you are evidently of the O[ mi m that th' re would bj an iujustico in cotnpplhng them to accept scch arrangements with the occupiers of their properties as Parliament mij,'ht direct. luo not tomk that thequestion ot justice or injustice to landlords m compelling them to take a fair rent is woitti while discussing, with the tact staring us in the face that the British Parliament has passed laws giving to tenants, both in lielnnd and Scotland, power to compel landlords to reduce their rents to i'dir bums, ignoring any previous contract. Our Paihameut, in passing a Tenants' and Mortgagor's Relief Hill, would ha~e an vi questionable piecedent to justify them, and as matters now stand, the only questions to be d? bated are — would such an act be a benefit to th-: general public ; and, if so, what form should it take. That the excessive sums paid in many cases by the occupies of land. eith'T in the shape of rent or inteiesi , aie acting as a restriction on trade isj undeniable ; aud that a reducti- n on *uch payaieuts would act as a stirauL-tnt to the agricultural interests, I think you will admit. Why, then, should we not have a uuasure to grant such relief as is required? 1 hose, you will sa) , who have lent us money would not like it. Very likely not ; but can we aftord to bacntice the public inteiest, considering the heavy public obligations we have incurred, and which must be fulfllkd at a.l costs, in the interests of a few private firms or individuals? Korean I see why they should object. The Bank of New Zealand basset an example ot straightforwardness to be commended, in appointing commissioners to ascertain t! c true value of their securities, which acuun many institutions in our midst would do well to lmitat". A public La-id Court would do that for others, which the bank will doubtless fin I toils advantage to have done for ueelf Tbat tLe public welt are is at pre c n being sacrificed in the lntetent of spilt miik there ih not a doubi. Your stiongest argument ngain-t the Fair Rei_t a.d Pr cc of Laud Bill p.i-sjJ by Iv Huusj ot llepics niativud last session was that it wouki be too expensive, in suppjrt of which obje-ct on you quote All . Couitncy — <in auth ruy v, ell worthy of respect ; but thue is one feature which the practical \voiking ot this act in liela id has s' o •vn, <_ yen under the very unfavorable circums anct.s which exist tveri 1 . This. is the large number ot c ises in which landlords aud tenants have com > to au arrange, nout without the assistance id the com t. 1 hat this v\ ould be the case heie in most casts is certain were occupiers ul lands put in a position to meet their l^hdloids on cqu il term *. /^" ti " ltfc; t ' l6CU ' iMon on tne questi mof Freetrade v. Protection jdx strongiy opp )eed I'rotceUuu ou ihe grounds that it would laise ihe cost ot pioduetiona to farmers of tutir produce, thereby hauuicapping them in competing in the British markets. In this matter, no doubt, you were orrcet, but to judge by your action in relerence to the Fair Rent and Price of Liud Bill, one would be inclined to conclude that you did not think rent a factor of any consequence in affecting the cost of production.

A high price for land has always been looked upon by the New Zealand press as cause to rejoice. Why this should be ho, from a public point of view, I cannot understand. That ia the past our land has been over-valued is undeniable, and that there is anything at piesent to justify the hope that in the near future high prices will be justified I cannot see, and I think it is the duty of everyone who has the welfare of the Colony at heart to deprecate anything in the shape of a boom in land, however anxious money lenders may be to bring such about. — I am, etc., October 30. NATIVE.