Thursday, September 10.

Otago Witness, Issue 1765, 19 September 1885, Page 10

Thursday, September 10.

PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.

In the Legislative Council, The interrupted debate on the motion of the Hon. Mr MILLER, that it was desirable to abolish the £500 exemption of the Property Assessment Bill was resumed. The Hon. Mr PHARAZYN deprecated the question being discussed as a class question. Colonel BRETT thought the exemption should be reduced to £200. The Hon. Mr SHEPHARD moved an amendment providing that the £500 exemption should be reduced instead of abolished. • The Hon. Mr SCOTLAND thought the present was not a suitable time for bringing forward the motion. People's minds were now greatly agitated on the subject of taxation, and he thought that additional taxation would have the effect of driving many out of the Colony. The Hon. Mr RICHMOND spoke in favour of the motion. The Hon. Mr MANTELL thought persons possessing property up to the value of £60 should pay a tax of one penny in the pound ; otherwise they should not be allowed to exercise the franchise. The Hon. Mr MILLER expressed his willingness to accept Mr Shepherd's amendment. The motion, as amended, was agreed to without a dissenting voice. . ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. In the House of Representatives, Replying to Mr Stewart, whether the Government will give a bonus of, say £500, for the manufacture of 300 tons of cement, or what other encouragement they will offer the manufacturer of cement in the Colony, The Hon. E. RICHARDSON said the Government would have no hesitation in offering encouragement for'the manufacture of cement if there was any probability of the industry being entered into. " • 'miners' rights. The House went into committee on the Miners' Rights Fee Reduction Bill. Mr W. F. BUCKLAND objected to the bill going any further. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. PUBLIC WORJCS EXPENDITURE. The debate, on Captain Russell's motion was resumed by Mr SCOBIE MACKENZIE. He regarded the present motion as one of no-confidence in fclje Government, which, if it were carried, should I lead 'to their resignation. It might be said that

the Government had already accepted two such motions without resigning, but he felt that their supporters, of whom he was one, in asking them to keep their seats after the rejection of the tariff and the Meiggs proposals by the House, did a very wrong thing. He was quite willing to his share of the responsibility for that act, but he now felt that the Government should undoubtedly have resigned. He hoped that if the present resolution was carried, and he intended to show good reason why it should not be carried, that the Government would accept it as . one of no confidence and resign their portfolios. He opposed the motion because he refused to sanction any attempt on the part of a section of the House to wringfrom the country works which it could not afford. He regarded the action df the Canterbury as a system of logrolling inside the House instead of outside, He referred at considerable length to the East and West Coast railway, and pointed out that bhe difference between the Otago Centraland the East and West Coast line was that the Otago Central line, while having good land to open up, had been in course of construction for seven years, and had also £300,000 already spent on it, and he contended that the condition of the country which that line would open up should be considered, and also that the money spent on it should not be thrown away. At the same time, he had great sympathy with the East and West Coast line, and he thought the time would ' come when that line would have to be constructed. He hoped the resolution would not be accepted by the House.