SMALL-HOLDINGS AND CREDIT UNIONS 49 



in our first discussion, he elaborated his views in 

 several directions, notably as regards his objections 

 to the existing system. 



First, he repeated that the " houseman " or free- 

 holder must select his land himself, which in effect 

 raises its price above that which would be paid were 

 some system of compulsory expropriation in force. 

 Secondly, he said that the power of obtaining State 

 credit on such easy terms (namely, 3 per cent.) in- 

 directly forces up the price of the land, as it makes 

 the would-be purchaser more eager to buy and there- 

 fore willing to pay over the market value. Thirdly, 

 that the law works unjustly, inasmuch as only a few 

 can benefit, especially under the last Act, which raised 

 the amount of the total loan obtainable, while many 

 applicants of equal merit must be disappointed. As a 

 matter of fact only three-eighths of the applications 

 under the Act of 1909 could be considered. Fourthly, 

 that the State itself cannot now borrow money at 

 less than 3 J to 3 J per cent., whilst the loans to small- 

 holders are made at 3 per cent. Therefore the loss 

 must be met out of the pockets of the taxpayers, many 

 of whom are quite as necessitous as the State small- 

 holders. Thus an injustice is worked to the community 

 in order to benefit a single class. 



These, put concisely, were the adverse points which 

 Mr. Waage had to advance against the Act of 1909. 



On the general question he added some others. 

 Thus he held that the proportion of cash supplied by 

 the small-holder was too small, and that instead of 

 one-tenth, a fourth or even a third of the total capital 

 might reasonably be required of him. He said, how- 

 ever, that it should be borne in mind that many of 

 the small-holders possess more money than the law 



D 



