78 Agriculture and the Community. 



be handed back again to the owners, or the farms might 

 be managed by the owners, after the unsatisfactory- 

 tenants had been got rid of. This is neither fair to the 

 community nor good for the industry. It would mean that 

 the State would have to handle the derelicts and accept the 

 responsibility and risk of putting them into going order, 

 after which the owners would resume possession. If the 

 State takes over mismanaged estates and farms neglected 

 land, and proves that it can make effective use of such 

 estates and farms, it ought in the national interest to 

 continue possession. If the burden is found too heavy for 

 the State, the liklihood is that it will be left in possession. 

 It would be a foolish policy to use the resources of the 

 State to salve the derelicts, and then hand the going 

 concerns over to private individuals, leaving the failures 

 for the State to carry. When an estate has to be taken 

 over, the landlord should be dispossessed and compensation 

 for his rights granted him on the basis of a mismanaged 

 agricultural estate. If a tenant is got rid of he should be 

 treated in the same way. But once the State enters into 

 possession it should remain in possession. 



I am aware that the policy I am advocating is not one 

 that will be profitable to the State, considered on a purely 

 commercial basis. It is likely for a time at any rate to 

 prove more costly than remunerative, but in the long run 

 it will pay to prevent the deterioration of national resources, 

 and there is no other way unless we are prepared to see 

 land further impoverished and neglected, and cultivation 

 decreased. 



The powers I have proposed to give the Committees 



