NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE 123 



Furthermore, as every acre of land we pur- 

 chase for the settlement of ex-soldiers increases 

 the value of the agricultural land surrounding 

 it, if we pursue this policy of purchasing land 

 at inflated prices we shall be placing a huge 

 burthen, not only on the backs of the whole 

 community, but also on that of those who have 

 fought for the land, when, in March 1926, the 

 latter are compelled to pay the full market 

 value of their holdings. 



The question of the ownership of the land is 

 vital, and surely there can be no other event- 

 uality than that of land nationalisation. Until 

 that consummation is reached, how are we to 

 proceed financially ? In a national measure it 

 would be quite fair, I think, to take Over land 

 at assessment value, plus, perhaps, an additional 

 5 per cent, for disturbance. But it would be 

 obviously unfair to acquire an estate to-morrow 

 at assessment value from a man who has perhaps 

 put his whole savings into the land, whilst the 

 owner of an adjoining estate is left in full 

 possession of his land and the income he 

 derives from it. It seems to me that the only 

 fair way, in the transitional state — the bridge 

 between now and then — is to institute a land 

 tax, so that the landowners who are still left in 

 possession should make the entire contribution 

 for compensating the difference between the 

 assessment value and the market value of land 

 to the owner whose property has been acquired 



