The Press. MONDAY, MAY 8, 1893. MR. D. PINKERTOIN'S SPEECH.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8477, 8 May 1893, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, MAY 8, 1893. MR. D. PINKERTOIN'S SPEECH.

The senior member for Dunedin City addressed his constituents a few evenings ago. Mr. Pinkerton's speeches are always worthy of careful study. He is one of the Labour members who produces the impression that he has carefully considered those questions he talks about, and that he is giving utterance to convictions which are sincere and thoroughly genuine. We may not be able always to agree with his conclusions, but at least we can admit that he endeavours to arrive at them by a process of reasoning. There is nothing declamatory about his speeches ; nothing to rouse animosities ; nothing to lead to the conclusion that , he is thinking of his seat only, and is prepared to say anything wild and revolutionary, if by doing so he may gain a few votes.

In dealing with the Land Bill of last

session, Mr. Pinkehtojst truly said that just iv proportion as our legiaiatioa on the subject of land was a success so would the prosperity of the country rise; and iv discussing the various provisions of the measure he showed his fair miudedneßS by admitting that, while at one time opposed to the " eternal lease " clauses he had now came to the conclusion that they were not so bad as at first sight had appeared to him, for the reason that settlement on the land was the main object he had in view. The lease in perpetuity he agreed would be the means of "inducing, settlement to a very " much larger extent than any of the ■" other systems of tenure to which he " had referred." Seeing thab the eternal lease clauses were proposed by the Government to meet the demand of the country for the freehold tenure in piace of the perpetual lease originally proposed by them, Mr. Pinkerton's admission is important. For most practical purposes a 999 years lease is as good as a freehold title, although it is open to some objections from an administrative pornc of view. Being a compromise, it does not quite satisfy the advocates oi the freehold title, and it does not satisfy the land nationalises, who claim that there should be periodical re-valuations of the rent. But, as we have said, Mr. Piskerton is liberal-minded enough to admit that it will in the meantime tend to induce settlement, which is the main object iv view. Then again, dealing with the question of taxation on land, Mr. Pinkerton endeavours honestly to face the argument that money invested in land pays a much higher rate of taxation than money placed, say, on deposit iv a Bank. He points out that if a particular sum placed in a Bank by an individual escapes taxation as far as he is concerned, the Bank uses the money and pays a tax on the profit. This is perfectly true; but the taxation ia very small, because the Bank only pays ou the profit derived from the use of the money after paying the deposit rates, so that the tax paid oa the money is a mere nothing compared with the tax paid on a similar amount invested in land. Another argument made use of by Mr. Pinkertost is that when a man goes in for the occupation of a piece of land hs does not invest all hie capital in the land ; part is spent oa stock and improvements. Granting this, neither does the man with a similar amount of capital who lives on interest derived from deposits place all hie money in a Bank, He lives in a comfortable house, has valuable furniture, perhaps keeps a carriage, all of which escape taxation under the existing law. So far then Mr. Piskerton entirely fails to meet the argument that under the land and income tax capital invested in land is moat unfairly dealt with compared with money invested in other forms. Hβ evidently sees this, and goes on to say that the man who invests in land doea so in the reasonable hope that it will rise in value, and it" was the increased value that ultimately paid the tax." In other words, bis argument is that the land tax is intended to give to the State the " unearned increment." Aβ a theory this may

eound very well to those not engaged in agriculture. But we would ask what prospect is there, with all prices of agricultural produce at their present very low level, and likely to continue, of the farmer being enabled to pay his land tax out of the increased value of his land ? That land is worth only what it will produce to him, and he naturally feela the grave iujustice of a system of taxation which takes out of his annual income ia the most favourable years a higher per centage than from others, and in unfavourable years still taxes him at the same rate, although he may have made no income at all. Besides, Mr. PiSKERTON entirely ignores tha face that if the land inoreases in value, the farmer does actually pay an increased tax, because the value of his land for taxing purposes is raised, and he pays the higher fate upon the higher value. This completely disposes of Mr. Pinkerton'B argument on this point. What the farmer claims and what he will insist upon is that he shall he taxed at the same rate that other people are. At present he is taxed at an enormously higher rate. On the subject of tbe Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, Mr. j Pinkerton spoke in favour of the I compmsory clauses. He admitted that there might be some difficulty in enforcing awards, but without compulsion the JJill would, he said, be useless, its object being to protect the weak against the strong. Mr. Pinkehtoit, it appears to us, does not sufficiently realise how the measure, if it were law, might be used to inflicb serious injury upon the weak; and how it would react in limitiug the wage fund, and so in the end destroying the great object all have in view, the creation of wealth, aud with it abundance of employment at remunerative rates. However, we cannot, within the limits of this article, restate all the grave objections to the proposal. Wβ can only notice in conclusion Mr. ! Pinkerton's defence of the Government in appealing to Downing street Ito settle the dispute between the Governor and themselves, with respect Ito the appointments to the Couucil. iHe admitted that if the appeal meant I that the English Government were invited to interfere in our legislation it was "a very bad thing." But he did not look at it in that light. He said the Secretary of State bad simply been asked to state whether the Governor was justified in taking the advice of his Ministers or in acting on his own responsibility. This is ingenious, but it) does not really touch the point at issue. It ignores the fact that the constitution provides all the machinery needed to solve the problem. It was the people of New Zealand who should have been requested to settle the dispute, not an outside authority. Ib was because Ministers shrunk from following the usual constitutional course—a course to which they had been pledged during the recess—that they had taken a step which was a direct infringement on popular rights. There are other questions discussed iv Mr. PiNKEßTON'sspeach,and argued out in a calm and dispassionate manner which, had space permitted* we might have touched upon, but we have said enough to show that while not agreeing with him ia many of his views, we can at least respect a member who approaches the discu&sion of public affairs iv a reasonable frame of mind.