The Bruce Herald. "Nemo me impune lacesset." TOKOMAIRIRO, JUNE 20 1890.

Bruce Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 2176, 20 June 1890, Page 2

The Bruce Herald. " Nemo me impune lacesset. " TOKOMAIRIRO, JUNE 20 1890.

It is nearlj three years since Mr J. C. Anderson offered himself as a candidate for the representation of Bruce in the House of Representatives, and succeeded in gaining a majority in his favor. Eor obvious reasons we neither opposed nor supported him on that occasion, and have as far as possible for the same reasons maintained a neutral position ever since. We have permitted correspondents to express their opinions regarding his capabilities and his public actions within certain limits, having always been careful to exclude from our columns anything approaching to harsh and unkindly criticism. Apart from all other considerations, he was certainly not the man we would have chosen to represent Bruce, or any other district, but he was the choice of the electors, and consequently the minority had to submit to the inevitable. We believe that Mr Andeeson has honestly tried to do his best. Jn so far as his views on various political subjects conflict with ours, we have no right to complain. He went up to Wellington on a certain ticket, and has been faithful to his hustings' pledges. If he has not succeeded in achieving a brilliant political career, it is not for the electors to throw his failure into his teeth Honesty and straightforwardness count, or should count, for more than brilliancy, and the former qualities Mr Andeeson has certainly exhibited. We sincerely sympathise with him over those misfortunes which necessitated a change of residence, and trust that he is now in a fair way to resuscitate his position. It would, however, have given us pleasure to have published any communication from himself relative to his change of abode, and abandonment of local interests. Unfortunately we were left to find out all about that by mere accident, and were naturally, in common with many of the electors, a little sore that he should have neglected to take the constituency into his confidence. He has now .announced his decision not to contest the seat again, and we join with his more immediate friends and supporters in cordially thanking him for past services. The worst we ever said against Mr Anderson was contained in a very short leaderette written immediately after his election. In that article we stated that he would go up to the House like a blank sheet of paper — to be written I upon for good or ill according to the associations he made and the influences ho was brought under. "We take pleasure in saying that so far the clean paper is not soiled, and we do not believe it will be durinej the last session of this Parliament. We are glad to be able to give Mr Anderson emphatic praise for what is a very uncommon thing in members of colonial parliaments. He has confessed to a change of opinion. The fact that a man is open to conviction, and not ashamed to acknowledge that he has been holdingerroneousopinions, redounds infinitely to his credit. The man who regards himself as infallible is unworthy of confidence or respect, and deserves to be called a fool. In his address in St George's Hall, Mr Anderson Baid he had changed his views on the subject of capitation to denominational schools, and had, after careful consideration of the subject, concluded that the Catholics were laboring under an injustice. Previously he expressed quite the opposite opinion. There is no need to pursue this subject further. We

only mention it to show that although a man may give certain pledges at the hustings, it may happen that afterwards, when more fully enlightened, he may consistently change his opinions. We now take farewell of Mr Anderson, assuring him that any harsh criticisms of ours were on y prompted by the kindliest wishes for his political success and desires to serve the best interests of the constituency.

TnE abolition of the tea-duty is a subject which has been advocated in many parts of the Empire, and is now attracting the attention of the Parliament of New South Wales. A member has moved for its immediate removal on the ground that the poorer classes, who could ill afford to pay it, suffered to the greatest extent. The motion was negatived, but not by a very large majority. It was opposed partly on the grouud that a serious loss of revenue would be entai'ed, amounting to about £100,000, and it was not shown how this was to be made up. The revenue from this source in New Zealand last year was £92,407 — a very important item to our Colonial Treasurer. The tea duty cannot in any sense be regarded as savoring of protection — so that fiscal principles have no place in the argument. And the argument that it presses with undue weight on the poor man need not count for much. The richer portion of the community have to pay in the same ratio. In New South Wales the duty is 3d per lb., in New Zealand it is 6d. The average paid by the population of New Zealand is 3s 4d per head per year. Surely it is no great hardship to pay this. The expenses of Government must be met, and the people must contribute thereto whether poor or rich. The wealthier classes have to pay in the shape of property tax, and why should not the poorer folk give their share in the form of an impost on tea. There can hardly be found a fairer tax, or one that is so free from class objections. And we are not quite sure that were the tea duty so heavy as to result in a reduced consumption of that beverage it would not be beneficial. Most colonials consume too much tea, to the hurt of their digestive organs. But, however that may be, we fail to see anything objectionable in the tea-tax. True, it led to the declaration of American independence and the war which resulted in the overthrow of British rule. But times have changed since then. And, besides, we are inclined to think that the tax on tea was more of an excuse than anything else, and that if such a convenient subterfuge had not been at hand some other would have been invented. The reformers who so persistently advocate the abolition of the duty on the foreign commodity have never yet indicated what they would give us in place of it. There is one alteration which might be made with advantage, and that is that instead of a uniform tax of so much per lb. there should be so much per cent. ad valorem levied. The more expensive qualities purchased by the well-to-do would then be more heavily taxed, and so the incidence to the means of the various classes of the population would bo equalised.

The subject of taxing absentee landholders is again to the fore, and, as will be seen from a paragraph from a Wellington correspondent elsewhere published, it is surmised that some practical effort in this direction will be made in Parliament next session. With regard to unimproved lands, purchased originally for small sums, and held until by reason of settlement around them they are enormously increased in value, it may be admitted that the proposal is by no means unfair. For not only are these locked up areas benefiting no--1 body, but they actually stand in the way of settlement. But the case of absentee landowners, whose estates are let out to men who do utilise them, and contribute to the revenue of the country, is different. It certainly appears that it would be no great hardship if these gentlemen who are living in ease and luxury at Home, and whose wealth, to say nothing of personal qualities, has gained them the right to enter good soc ety, were to be asked to directly contribute more liberally than they do towards the revenues of the country from which they derive all their wealth. We should be sorry to adopt the extreme views on this subject which are expressed by many of our contemporaries. The private ownership of large estates is not necessarily a curse to this or any other country. The curse comes in when the large landowners withdraw from local circulation the revenues derived from those estates. As a matter of fact, these estates have passed out of the hands of the Q-overnment, and to talk of bursting them up, of compelling personal residence, and all that sort of thing at this period is rather out of place. The subject has been threshed out in all its phases and bearings year after year for a long time past, and nothing definite has yet been decided upon. To tax the absentees seems a very simple thing to do, but we incline to think that when such a course becomes a question of practical politics, and is discussed on the floor of the House, bo many difficulties will be started, bo many objections urged, that it will take far more than one session, to

accomplish anything, and it is not likely it will be done by this the last Bess ion of the present Parliament. It is to Ur. feared, too, that some of the advocates of taxing .absentees are disposed to demand too much. They are auxious to have such a heavy imposition levied as to reudor it unprofitable to the proprietors to hold on — in fact, the policy is to burßt up the big estates by means of excessive taxation. However well such a plan might succeed, it would be anything but an honest and straightforward ' method of doing the business. It is to be hoped that some method more creditable to the legislature and the colony will be devised.

The 'Evening Press' recently published a leading article on the subject of " Wellington's responsibility." From the tenor of the article we conclude that what is aimed at is that Wellington being the seat of Governs ment should in all other respects strive to achieve and attain a premier position. And we suppose that not even her rival Auckland will object to this so long as the methods adopted are legitimate, and the pride of place aimed at is deserved. But that just because Wellington happened through the accident of circumstances to be the seat of Government, she should therefore boss the whole colony is an idea which will not hold water for a moment. The article goes on to argue that now that the city is again a single constituency, it should speak with one voice : — " We do not want to see two of our members behind the Ministerial benches, and the other hand in glove with the Opposition. We want unity in all essential policy. It is manifest that to secure this there must be moderation and forbearance in the constituency, and that some sacrifices must be made on all sides for the common good." Possibly all the larger cities with their amalgamated electorates will hold similar views. And we shall not be surprised if the policy thus sketched by our Wellington contemporary does not find favor with them all. Reading between the lines we fancy we see in ,this an endeavor on the part of the cities ,to as far as they can neutralise the advantage gained by the country party last year in the matter of the quota. It is equivalent to saying that all the city members shall be banded together either on one side of the House or the other, which side being determined by the general elections. Either Government or Opposition matters little. The political questions which agitate the country are of little moment, in so far as they^ do not particularly affect the large centres. All the city members must range themselves on that side of the House the policy of which is most favorable to city interests. And it is plainly evident that if this rule is acted upon there will, notwithstanding the quota, be a strong preponderance of city influence in the next Parliament, and then the country party may be severely scourged for their past actions. If the policy of our Wellington contemporary ia general y adopted the battle Town versus Country will be commenced again and rage more furiously than ever. In view of this it behove? country constituencies to take care that they return country, men— rmen closely identified with the interests of the country districts, and give all candidates hailing from the cities a very wide berth indeed.