The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996. THE TRIANGULAR CONTEST IN PARNELL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 286, 2 December 1896, Page 4

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

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996. THE TRIANGULAR CONTEST IN PARNELL.

For tho cacao that lack', assißtanco, For the -nrroas ilint noocU resistance, For the fstrr.re in tte d:Gt.inco. Aci tis gccri that \re can ao.

We have read very attentively the speeches of candidates, and heard a good deal of personal discussion in connection with the election for the representation of Parnell, but we have not yet heard one satisfactory reason why the late member, Mr F. Lawry, should be replaced. And when his claims are compared with those of his opponents, there are a gieat many reasons why the Parnell electors should retain his services. No representative could have manifested a more active interest in local concerns. Among other things, he has recently secured for the people a valuable recreation reserve on the sea frontage, which would otherwise have been leased lor building purposes, and he has obtained assistance from the Government towardsremedying the nuisance created by the raiiway embankment shutting in the Hospital sewage matter discharged from the Stanley-street drain. Every Patnell elector who has had business to attend to in connection with Parliament or public departments was always sure of friendly advice and assistance from the sitting member. These arc valuable recommendations.

Mr Lawry has suffered a good deal of misrepresentation from personal detractors. The fact that lie has been for six years Chairman of the Stock Committee of the House of Representatives, one of the most important of the Parliamentary Committees, and which contributed to the State papers last session a valuable and exhaustive report upon the best means of promoting the prosperity of our agricultural industries, shows that he is held in great esteem among the representatives of farming districts, who appreciate his extensive and sound knowledge of agricultural and pastoral subjects. Mr Lawry has been a member of this committee for eleven sessions, and has never absented himself from one of its meetings. Indeed*, no member of the House applies himself more assiduously to his Parliamentary duties. Mr Lawry has provoked a good deal of opposition by his attitude on the licensing question, but as we have pointed out before, the delegation of absolute power to deal with that subject by direct vote should remove it from being any longer a disturbing element in the general politics of the country. If there is any one thing which wiii cause a change in the existing law in a direction contrary to the one which prohibitionists desire, it will be their attempt not only to run the local option poll, but to subordinate the entire politics o( the country to this single issue. If this is persisted in there will, most assuredly, be a strong agitation on the part of the non-prohibitionist electors to secure a change in the present system of taking the two votes on the same day.

So far as we know, it is not even alleged that Mr Lawry has failed lo fulfil his election pledges. He has been identified with the Liberal side in politics for 20 years; was elected as a Government supporter, and has consistently voted for every Liberal

measure. At the same time, Mr Lawry has too much practical experience to become the exponent of extreme theoretical and revolutionary doctrines. He is a believer in the direct responsibility of the Government to the people, and opposed to the creation of a parliamentary system under which it would be impossible lor the people to call the rulers of the country, to account for their administration of national affairs.

Turning now to Mr Arthur Withy : By his circulars and addresses he has so completely identified himself with the single tax that his candidature cannot be separated froju an endorsement of a policy of national repudiation and confiscation in relation to land. This would bring ru>n upon the most industrious, most deserving, and most poorly remunerated class in the country— the hona fide settler. We understand chat Mr Withy, in the course of his speeches, has quoted from an article which appeared in this journal in jSSq, which he regards as expressing approval of the doctrines of Henry George. At. that time, we were fighting the battle of the land tax on unimproved values against the property tax, and with respect to this principle in assessing agricultura1 land for State purposes we believe the views expressed by Henry George, and long before him by Adam Smith and John Stuari Mill, are sound. We do not believe, however, that assessment on unimproved values is generally applicable to cities, because it is right that the income derived from the iarge amount of private wealth invested in buiidings should contribute a fair quota towards the city

funds

As we pointed out before, the disciples of Henry George have a fashion of appropriating every expression of opinion in favour of taxation ou unimproved values and State leasing, given utterance lo by any political economist or statesman, as an endorsement of the single lax. In this way they have exploited Adam.Smith, who strongly urged tbe sale of the lands held by the Stale in various parts of Europe in his day, John Stuart Mill, who maintained that even Suture values oi land should be taken into account before levying any tax upon unearned increment, Mr Gladstone, and many other public men whose views are notoriously opposed to Henry George's cardinal doctrine. Seeing that something like 10,000 articles have appeared in this journal since the present editor supported Sir George Grey's land-tax proposals in IS7S, it should not be very difficult to cud a few paragraphs which might be twisted into an endorsement of Henry George's views, but if anything we have written may be fairly construed as endorsing the doctrine of the single tax, we regret it, for these reasons .

i. Because we believe that national honesty is as precious as individual honesty. 2. Because taxation ought to be apportioned to the ability to bear it, and it is notorious that the trader and manufacturer make a gieat deal more money with less work by handling the raw products of the land than the farmer does by producing them. We believe that all income, however derived, above a reasonable margin for living, should be taxed. 3. Because the single tax would rob those producers who have gone on the land of the fruits of their industry, while the man who has invested " his savings either in trading stock, shares, or upon the security ot the improvements effected by workers ot iand would go scot iree and despoil all other classes in town and country. It is not necessary to enlarge upon these points, or to advance others. We have already discussed the subject at considerable length during the past lew days.

We dissent from Mr Withy's views on other important points. His proposal to abolish the exemption ol ,£SOO under the land tax assessment and increase the tax by id in the £, although peculiarly unjust and impolitic as applied to tho country, where land forms the settler's stock-in-trade, is also unfair to residents in town who, by dint of industry, have got a cottage of their own. Many electors have not yet fully realised what it means. If we take £3 per loot frontage as a lair average price and 40 ;t as a tairsized allotment tor a cottage, we get a taxable value of £120, which at 2d in the £ represents a tax of £1 a year per cottage. The reductions in Customs duties proposed by Messrs Fowlds and Withy, are : £47>364 W' the remission of the duty on Kerosene, and ,£59,636 by reductions in breakfast table duties, leaving ,£163,000 surplus revenue ior an old age pension fund. From the repeal of the kerosene duty consumers of gas will get no benefit. The reduction on breakfast table duties would only amount to about is Sj^d per head o( the population. We can neither see justice nor statesmanship in taxing land to relieve consumers of kerosene, or in laying the whole burden of Old Age pensions upon the unimproved value of land, while the income derived from £98,490,846 of accumulated wealth in other forms, and sll trading profits and salaries, escape scot free.

There are other points in Mr Withy's programme from which we strongly dissent—notably the ultra free trade views which are inseparably associated with the doctrine of the single tax. We believe a policy of moderate protection is absolutely indispensable to the fostering of manufacturing industries in a young country. Personally, Mr Withy has many qualifications <or public life, aad when those Utopian ideas ot a royal toad to universal happiness which form the dreams of youth have been toned down in the school of experience, he will, we believe, do good service in the political arena. It would be well for him to remember, however, that those who sow the wind may reap the whirlwind.

Of Mr Vaile's candidature we need say little. As a citizen he is well known and deservedly esteemed, but as a representative of the Opposition we can scarcely extend to him our sympathies. Apart from that, Mr Vaile would, we think, enter the parliamentary arena too late in liie to achieve any large measure of success.

For these reasons we hope the electors of Parnell will place Mr Frank Lawry at the head of the poll.