Security of Property has always been the proud boast of any 
Administration -under British Protection, and whilst we sincerely 
trust, that that security will always extend to free or lease-hold 
property in the F. M. S. and that w$ may not awake one fine day 
to see an Enactment gazetted, imposing fresh taxation on land 
already alienated: yet it must be admitted that the law relating to 
unalienated land has been of an instability well nigh intolerable. 
The Land Enactment of 1891 was succeeded by that of 1892, 
this by another of 1893, this by another of 1897 and this once 
more by that of 1903; so that in the short; space of 12 years we see 
that the basical law on the subject has been changed not less than 
four times. , 
The amount of annual quitrent charged per acre was fifteen 
years ago 25c., a few years later 50c., this in 1903 was raised to 
$1/- and only two years after again to $4/-. 
The whole history of this legislation shows a regrettable lack of 
strength of purpose, not to say immaturity, which before all others 
unfavorably distinguishes the F. M. S.' from other new countries, 
where, as in Canada and Australia, the capital and labor, required 
to develop the untapped resources of the land, are attracted by 
free grants of land. 
The danger of over-speculation is ever present, but it has been 
left to the Government of the F. M. S. to set up a policy, not of 
counteracting such tendencies, but of carefully fostering them by 
restricting grants of land and by raising their original price. For, 
the consequence of this attitude can only mean one thing, namely 
to induce every individual owqer of land to try to sell out his 
interest to investors in Europe, while prospects are so promising 
and values so high. 
Comparisons are odious, but one cannot help comparing tire 
land rules of these States with those of our next door neighbours, 
Sumatra. In Sumatra an agricultural industry has been established 
for years, paying as much as 150 per cent annual dividends in several 
cases; but far from trying to restrict the cultivated area, the Dutch 
Government have ever been most’ liberal in- offering the virgin 
stretches of land suitable for tobacco-cultivation to whomsoever 
was willing to develop the dormant wealth of the Colony. That 
this policy pays best in the end must be obvious; for even if the 
direct income from land sales and land taxes is less in this case, 
the general and indirect revenue obtained through the creation of 
a large and thriving industry, employing thousands of laborers, 
must in the end cover a hundredfold the original loss of revenue. 
If then the framing of our present Land Rules, as affecting the 
Rubber Industry cannot be called anything but the absolute 
opposite of statesmanlike : what can be said about these Rules, as 
applied to the other Agricultural Industries?? If the same $4/- 
quitrent a year has to be paid per acre, whether the crop be rubber 
or coconuts, whether the yield per acre be £40 or £4: the only 
natural result can be to drive everybody to plant up every acre of 
