The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1896. MR GEO. FOWLDS AND THE SINGLE TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 279, 24 November 1896, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1896. MR GEO. FOWLDS AND THE SINGLE TAX.

For the causs that lacks ossistacs, r-cTrtbrxno-B that seeds ru-sUt-os, Eorjtfcs f-tnre in the ftstanee. fty . And tbe _ocd tbat we era do. A:", p.

Mr Fowlds entertained a meeting of the electors at the Opera House last night with a narration of his grievances against this journal, and although he disclaimed any personal feeling in the matter, there was a tone of bitterness in his remarks which is quite uncalled for, and not conducive to the caira judicial consideration of the questions at issue. Now we have no grievance against Mr Fowlds—on the contrary, he is a very good friend and customer, and by his business enterprise pours more money into the Star treasury every year than all the other candidates for election put together. On ihe present occasion, however, we have to deal with him in his political and not his personal or his business capacity.

Curiously enough, Mr Fowlds' first grievance is the raising of the question of the single taxin the present election. Why the candidate should fasten this upon us we are at a loss to understand. Our first reference to the subject was in rebuttal of a statement made by Mr Fowlds at one of his meetings that Sir George Grey was a believer in the single tax. We quoted from a speech delivered by Sir George Grey before the Single Tax League in Sydney during the sitting of the Federal Convention, in which he expressly disclaimed the doctrine, and maintained what he has contended for throughout his public career in New Zealand, that taxation should be levied on income as well as upon land. That Sir Geo. Grey believes in a land tax on unimproved values, and in the special taxation of the unearned increment and the breaking up of land monopoly goes, of csurse, without saying. Adhesion to the principle of the single tax is a very diSerent thing. In cities, which are closely built on, the single tax would not break up land monopoly—it would simply take lor tbe State all the freeholder's interest in the land and leave hira, or more probably his mortgagee, in possession. In the country monopoly would, no doubt, be broken up by causing the expropriation of the freeholding farmer and a widespread evacuation of the land.

The single-taxers, however, have a happy knack of claiming as disciples all who advocate or have ever advocated the principle of land taxation on unimproved values and State leasing. In this way Mr Fowlds arraigned on his side Carlyle, Ruskin, Mr Gladstone, John Moriey, John Stuart Mill, Adam liSmith/ and a number of other great names—men who, although perceiving the half truth which has become tbesole dogma in the religion of the single- ; taxer, co.ld see the other half as well. The lugging in of Adam Smith, who devotes a large space in Chapter IX., Book V., of his «« Wealth of Nations," to setting forth reasons why it is advantageous for the State to sell its lands, rather staggers one. Sir George Grey, in his address before the Sydney land-taxers, said that his opinions on the subject had been largely moulded by his personal conferences with John Stuart Mill in England in iB6B, and he has quoted with approval on more than one occasion in the New Zealand Parliament Mill's views upon this subject. Those who, feel any interest in the opinions (if that great writer on political economy -will find them set out in Book V. chapter 11. of his " Principles oi Political Economy," from which we make the following quotation : —

I admit bhab ib would be unjust to conso upon each individual estate, and lay h°ld of the increase which might be found to have taken place in its rental; because thero would be no means of distinguishing in individual cases, between an increase owing to the general circumstances of society, and one which was the effect of skill and expenditure on the parb of the proprietor. The only admissible mode of proceeding would be by a general measure. Tho firab step should be a valuation of all the land in bho county. The present value of all land should be exempt from the tax ; but after an interval had elapsed, during which society bad increased in population and capibal, a rough estimate mighb be made of the spontaneous increase which had accrued to rent since bhe valuation was made. . . . I see no objection to declaring thab the future increment of rent should be liable to special taxation; in doing which all injustice to the landlords would be obviated, if the present markeb price of their land were secured to them ; sinco thab includes the present value of all future expectations.

To these views very few people will have much hesitation in giving their unqualified assent. For our own part ws are preoared to go yery much fur-

ther than Mr Mill proposed, and the measures enacted by the Liberal Government in New Zealand have done this. The graduated tax on land is rapidly breaking down the big estates, and if it is not sufficient to do that, we would cheerfully give another turn of the screw, but we can only regard as a suggestion tending towards national suicide any proposal which would penalise the bona fide farmer and struggling settler. That the Government, while doing their utmost to place people on the land, even to the extent of establishing State farms and village settlements, should impose a land tax of 2d in the £ on the struggling settlers who are holding on to the soil unaided, and by the greatest personal sacrifices, seems to us the height ■•of folly. But this is the proposal upon which Mr Fowlds has publicly declared his determination to stake his election.

Mr Fowlds last night endeavoured to make it appear that the big landowner, and not the little one, would be hit by his proposed tax. He omitted, however, to point out that while hjs proposal would involve a payment of i6s'Bd per £100 value by 76,399 land owners who have land of not more than unimproved value, the levy upon the 15,102 holders of larger areas would only be 8s 4d per £100. This beaatiful exemplification of the principle of apportioning taxation to the ability to bear it, calls for as little comment as the amazing statement that every settler's family on the average consumes 24 gallons of kerosene per year.

We have already discussed this subject at such length in former issues that it is almost needless to revert to it. A word must, however, be said upon Mr Fowlds' second grievance, that we object to a candidate refusing to give a clear expression of opinion on the chief issue which is placed before the country at a general election —we mean the question whether the Government of the day is entitled to the confidence of the, people. Such an attitude is directly at variance with the entire system of responsible government. Itis.for the electors, and not any individual candidate, to decide the fate of a Ministry, and it is peculiarly inconsistent on the part of those so-called '* Independents" who profess their belief in the referendum and the supreme authority of the people, to attempt to deprive the electors of their constitutional privileges in this matter. " Independent " candidates virtually arrogate to themselves the position of party leaders, and electors who are not willing to recognise them in that role, and who believe in the inherent right of the people to exercise direct control over the Government of the country, have no alternative but to cast their votes for •men who take a decided stand on one side or the other. In this respect a pronounced Oppositionist ia less objectionable than an Independent, because an efficient, vigilant, weilorganised Opposition is as essential to the good government of a country as a capable Executive. Mr Fowlds and other " Independent" candidates ask their supporters to delegate to them the. most important political function vested in the constituencies. They say : "We believe in direct vote on great measures," and yet refuse electors the right to a direct vote upon the greatest question of all—the existence of the Government. Moreover, they lose sight of the face that, whatever they may think, there is no constitutional alternative but resignation for a Ministry which fails to secure a majority at a generalelection. If there be a grievance, therefore, in this matter, which formed such a prominent place in Mr Fowlds' address last night, it is assuredly not on the side of the candidate but of the electors.