Correspondence.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXI, Issue 49, 6 April 1894, Page 26

Correspondence.

[We are not responsible for the opinions expressed by our Correspondents.]

CARDINAL MORAN ON THE SOCIAL PBOBLEM.

TO THE EDITOR N.Z. TABLET. Sib, — Words fail to express how pleased I was to read Cardinal Moran's utterances on the social problem, as reported in your issue of March 16. His Eminence's remarks prove conclusively that there is genuine distress in Australia, and that the want of work which obtains there is not due to the lazy habits of the workers, but to a great see al injustice. It if, indeed, a Bad and humiliating reflestion that in the midst of teeming abundance there should be thousands of people clamouring for bread or work ; and in that respect these colonies threaten to become *s bad as any of the older countries. It is pleasing that the digni'aries of the Church should raise their voices in defence cf the homeless people. The plain language of the Cardinal shows beyond all doubt that deep distress exists, and it now remains for statesmen ani politicians to apply the remedy. But, while admiring the noble sympathy evinced by bis Eminence for the poor «nd workless, I bet; respectfully to dissent from the remedy he appears to suggest by implication. His remarks show clearly enough that the monopoly of the soil has a good deal to do with the existing distress — a fact which none of your readers will deny when I tell them that half the colony of New South Wales is •• owned " by 677 people I That this is the primary cause of the trouble is beyond all donbt. Bot it is as to the nature of the remedy where I differ from his Eminence. Without dealing with the proposal to limit the rate of interest by law, let us see what can be said for the limitation of the area of individual holdings of land. At present

there it a widespread dissatisfaction with large estates, and the ide*, | that holdings should be limited by law finds ready acceptance Amongst a large section of the people. Bat it should be borne in mind that what was a good law in bygone times may not be at all practicable now. The Mosaic land code, for instance, was an excellent one for the times ; but nowadays it would not b* ad van- i ttgeous to have a redistribution of land every fifty years. In the i times of Moses there were no permanent improvements to be compared with those of modern times. His land system would be excellent amongst a race of shepherds and busbindmeo, many of ' whom lived in tents. But it would not do for a commercial people or with people who lived m great citiej. Toe Liciaian law*, too, were excellent in their day ; but the social conditions of ancient ! Rome were entirely different from ours. Much of the population of Borne and other empires was entirely rural. There were, indeed | great cities ; but th^re was nothing like the tendency to concentration in cities which is pre-eminently the characteristic of modern times. Land was, in consequence, of a much more equal value, and i hence equality of possession could be secured by limitation ; of area. la these days, however, it is very different on account of the introduction: of steam and electricity and the invention of machinery. Pjpalatioa tends to certaia spots, while va»t areas of country are but thinly peopled. The inevitable result is that the ownership of a small area of suburban or urban lands confers far greater advaatages on individuals than the ownership of large areas of rural laad. Three hundred acres would not be considered a large farm, and for pastonl purposes it wonld ' be of no use at all. But it would be large enough to c mtain a city. | Whence it follows plainly that to limit the area of individual hold- : ings would be no prevention of land monopoly. Land of little value could not be taken up, because a man could not acquire enough of it, and laad of great value— perhaps worth band re is of poun Is to the square foot—would be moaopolised. It should be borne in mind ' that it is not ttna inhereat richness of the soil alone which renders ie valuable ; the advantages of location must also be considered. Land is very valuable in San Francisco, but San Francisco is built on a sand-baak Tne recUioud land of Wellington will grow about as! much as would a paved street ; nevertheless, it is far more valuable than any rural land of similar area. People seem to ignore the fact ' that the monopoly of urban and suburban land cannot be prevented by legislation, modelled on the Licioian syatem. In modern times it

is not rural land alone which mnst be considered. The land in and near towns and cities is an even more important consideration. As old bottles cannot bold new wine, so old land systems cannot apply ia oar day. I think it must appear plain from the foregoing that the different circumstances of the present time necessitate entirely different treatment. The true remedy will be found by going on in the direction taken already by the New Zealand Government—by taxing the rental value of land, after deducting all improvements. Let this principle be applied in New South Wales, or anywhere else, and land-monopoly ca not fxist. Under bucq taxation holders of land would either improve or throw their land open to the public, and in either case the result would be tbe same — landloidism would be killed. With regard to mban land one great advantage would be that house rent — at present etborbitant — would fall on account of th° increase in tbe numbers of houses. This is the only remedy for the difficulties of modern times. It covers all the ground, for the land question is inseparably allied with the laboar question. The one cannot be dealt with without the other. Already the land-grabbers throughout the world see this taxation coming. The endden resolve on the part of landlords in Great Britain and Ireland to sell their estates in small holdings is tbe outcome of a fear that in a few year* the selii g value will be gone owing to taxation. Toe Betterment Bill has passed the Commons twice. It has been as often rejec ed by the Peers. The Londoa County Cmncil hare refused to make further improvement until the Bill is passed. Its passage is only a question of time ; but the delay gives the privileged bandits breathing time. They see in the distance a progressive land tax ; hence they must pell as speedily a* possible. Perhaps the desire on the part of our own New Zealand landlords to " burst up " their estates hps a similar cause. I feel assured that Cardinal Moran must eventually see that the remedy for land monopoly, and the settlement of the unemployed trouble, can be found, not in the limitation of land, but in tbe taxation of rent. I offer my opinion in all humbleness, with tbe profoundest respect for His Eminence and witn the deepest pleasure at the sympathy he expresses for those who are the victims of a wicked and pernicious land system. I venture to predict that in the near

future. Henry George and Father McGlynn will be iustified.Beefton, March 26.