The Press. FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1875.

Press, Volume XXIII, Issue 2940, 22 January 1875, Page 2

The Press. FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1875.

Mc Satjndees baa favored us with another letter. He took up his pen, so he says, to reply to the questions in our last article upon the system of rating. "We thank him for his good intentions, and will thank him more heartily when they are fulfilled. As it is, we are a little disappointed to find that be changed his mind after writing that first B_nSen.ce4.fQr, though he no doubt sat down to. his letter intending to answer our questions to our heart's content, he ended it without answering . At the risk of boring our -other readers r we will repeat our questions once "We hfcye aeked them twice ; third attempt we may get an answer. ,-Third. trials, according to the proverb, are lucky. - -rr. Mr T6_BwiH <!S wißleff to male the rates press less b,eavil£"<m the owners of improved Jandj.m-other words,, that such owners should pay Jeaprthanl they do under tbe present syateii. In every district, then, where there is a

considerable amount of improved land, the reduction, operating over a considerable area, must involve a corresponding reduction of the total proceeds of the rate. Consequently, the income of the Road Boards will be so much the less, and the landowners will find bo much lees money available for the formation and maintenance of roads. This is the first obvious result of Mr Tosawill's proposal. MrSaunders proposes to make good the deficiency at the expense of the owners of unimproved land. Clap on them, he says, the lion's share of the rate. This is eHßilv eaid; though we should like to see his draft of the clause in the Ordinance setting fo"rth the precise in which it was to be accomplished. Suppose it done, however. The result would probably be—it is part of Mr ( Saunders's theory that the result would be—to induce owners of unimproved land to cultivate it or to sell it to cultivators. Then, as each piece of land successively was brought under cultivation, it would be entitled to reduction granted to the land first improved. And bo by a little longer process, we come round to the former position—a general reduction of rates involving a diminution of Road Board revenue. This diminution would go on in exact proportion with the increase of cultivation. As the requirements of the district in the way of roads, and as the wear and tear of the roads increased, so the payments on account of rates would decrease ; till the income from rates would reach the minimum, just as the expense of keeping the roads in repair had reached the maximum. Thi* is a very evident difficulty —one that lies at the very threshold of the suggested system. The advocates of that system ought to shove , us how they mean to get over it. They have not yet attempted to do so. It seems never to have occurred to Mr Tosswill, and Mr Saunders studiously shirks it. Of course, Mr Saunders may say that the Road Boards will have power to raise the rates, and that there will be no deficiency because the landowners will be taxed to the same amount as before. And this is a sufficient answer. Only in that case we do not clearly perceive what benefit they will derive from the change. Next as to the valuing of the land, Mr Saunders charges us with attributing " extreme ignorance" to the supporters of Mr Tosswill's plan. We have not done so. He chooses to put the words into our mouth, but we never uttered them. What we said was that they appeared not to understand the point we had raised. We referred to the difficulty of getting at the relative value of two adjoining sections, one highly improved and the other left in a natural state, "irrespective of improvements." Mr Saunders replied that land in the West Coast ranges was worth less than land in the suburbs of Christchurch. Surely such an answer proved that he had not comprehended us. What was it to the purpose ? We Were not speaking of the difference between mountain and suburban land, but of sections lying side by side in the same district. The proposal is that the valuator shall look to nothing but the value of the actual land ; that he shall not take any improvements on it into account; that he nhall make no allowance for any building, or fencing, or draining, or ploughing, or cropping, or any expenditure upon the land in any shape or form, but shall estimate the value as though none of the land had ever been broken up. Well, it seems to us that hie duties will be, as Mr Saunders eaye, greatly simplified—simplified, indeed, down to nothing. The value under such conditions will be just what was originally paid for the the land—that is, £2 an acre all round. It is the improvement or proximity to improvement, that gives the land any extra value. At what price per quarter-acre would it be fair to value the land on which Christchurch stands, on the supposition that the city had never been built ? Mr Saunders writes throughout as though the question lay wholly between speculative purchaser on the one hand and the small culti vator on the other. But this is a very one-sided view. Nor is it the view taken by Mr Tosswill. In his speech at the Conference the other day Mr Tosswill did not refer to the 10,000----acre man at all. His typical case is that of two neighbours, each farming 100 acres and producing equal crops, of whom one has put up extensive substantial farm buildings, while the other is content with tumble-down makeshifts. Mr TosswilPs grievance is that the man with the good buildings is rated higher than the man with the bad. Not a word that Mr Saunders has written applies to this case. His rhetoric about forestalling the intending cultivator—driving tbe improving settler from his market—being a public benefactor—making two blades of grass grow where one grew before— and all that sort of thing, is out of place. The two men occupy the same amount of land and produce the same amount; and therefore, so far as their usefulness to the public is concerned, they stand exactly on a par. In fact it would not be difficult to show that as great irregularities would arise under the new system of rating as are complained of under the present. Mr Saunders takes an extreme case, and argues from it. So may we. We will suppose, then, that in the same j district there is a farmer who has bought and farms in a plain ordinary way, one hundred acres, and a rich man—a squatter, or speculator, or whatever may be Mr Saunder's pet aversion—who has, say ten acres. The latter has built a splendid house, and has laid out his land in lawns, gardens, shrubberies, ornamental grounds, and so Now, under the new system, how would these two men be rated. Acncordingto M.esarßT.QSßwill and Saunders the improvements are to be regarded as adding nothing- to tbe value of the property. They" are not to be considered at all. The valuator is to look eefely to the quantity of land occupied; and because the farmer hae a hundred acres and his wealthy neighbour only tea, the farmer is to be §addie<l witt

ten times the amount of rate. We do not think the farmer would see the Justice of this arrangement. This is <»f course an extreme case. But it is not an impossible one; and instances of similar unfairness, though to a less exaggerated extent, — the san c in principle, differing only in degree, would be of common occurrence. However, it is scarcely worth while to prolong this discussion. We do not want to quarrel with Mr Saunders, in spite of his bad opinion of ourselves and our polities ; in token of which we offer him, if he cares to accept it, the privilege of the last word. Another time perhaps we shall be fortunate enough to find a subject upon which we can agree. This particular ques- j tion will no doubt be carefully con- ] sidered by the Road Board Chairmen ; and, if the result is encouraging, we suppose Mr Tosswill will bring it before the Provincial Council. The Council is very competent to deal with it, and its practical interest is sufficient to ensure it the treatment its importance deserves.