A STATESMAN.

Evening Star, Issue 8816, 4 May 1892, Page 1

A STATESMAN.

Sir John Hall may be regarded as representing the most Conservative element in the present House of Representatives. He has neither taste nor disposition for experimentalising on the body politic, and regards with hardly concealed contempt the pseudo-Liberalism of the day. Conspicuous among his per* sonal qualities are moderation,, judgment, and common sense. His political views have never been extreme or prejudiced. He is too sensible to confound the means with the end, and j not to discriminate between the use and abuse of great principles. His public career has been a most distinguished one. He has been almost continuously, since the establishment of constitutional government in New Zealand, a member of the Legislature, and from time to time has held high political office, having been Premier from 1879 to 1882. Unfortunately during this period of grave anxiety and exceptionally hard work his health broke down, and has never been reinstated sufficiently to allow his engaging actively in party struggles. It may with truth be asserted that he has been one of the best public men in New Zealand, whilst he is among the few members of the present Parliament who have any claim to be considered statesmen. Sir John, who is member for the electoral district of EUesmere, addressed a meeting of his constituents at Leeston on Thursday evening last, reviewing in a most comprehensive manner the political position, and subjecting the Ministerial policy to exhaustive criticism. The calm judicial utterances of Sir John, the logical sequence of his arguments, his carefully verified statements of fact, are in marked contrast to the hysterical declamations of Ministers on the platform their openmouthed appeals to the vanity and self interest of the class on whose support they rely, and their utter disregard of propriety, verity, and justice when they think they can make a point or injure an opponent. Sir John says very hard things, no doubt, and is unsparing in his denunciation of the hollow shams with which Mr Ballance and his colleagues have sought to delude the people; but he avoids offensive expressions or anything approaching personal recrimination. Calmly, with due deliberation, and an .evident sense of responsibility, he sets forth the truth, showing the real scope, tenor, and almost certain results of the OrOVemment ineuburco, and deposing the utter humbug of their professions. After the fish - fag . oratory of electioneering Ministers, it is refreshing to read this speech by Sir John Hall. In reference to the present financial position, Sir John points out that the present government practically inherited from their predecessors a handsome surplus, and had the wisdom, so far, as to leave the " Atkinsonian finance " in operation during the year just closed, the consequence being a very substantial balance to the good. It is claimed, he says, by Ministers, that they have effected considerable retrenchment, but the appropriation for the year exceeded those of 1890-91, and, so far as could be judged by what is known to have been going on, these appropriations are likely to be found to have been exceeded. In some directions, beyond doubt, the ordinary expenditure has been lavish. Sir John notes that the small balance of loan money available is being spent mainly with an eye to political purposes. " You will have noticed," he says, " as " a remarkable coincidence, that when- " ever a by-election takes place in any "district the state of the roads and "public works there immediately requires the presence of one or two "Ministers," the two generally "whose " province it is to put public works in "hand. You will draw your own " inferences as to how your money is "spent." Sir John is eminently clear and lucid in regard to the taxation proposals of the Government. He does not discusstheprinciples involved in the change, these being, he says, well understood, but confines himself to the manner in which these principles are to be applied. The different way in which, on the one hand, personal property, and on the other laud, are treated, is, he considers, remarkable and unjust. First, with regard to the exemptions, income from personal property and from trade is to be absolutely free from any tax up to £3OO, and then only will have to pay 6d on any income over that sum up to £1,000; after which Is is the maximum. Incomes from professions are still more favored. With regard, however, to the farmer and landowner, if his year's work, owing to bad seasons or low prices, leaves him no profit whatever, he still has to pay the land tax without abatement, being thus placed in a far worse position than the taxpayer of the town. Then, as to the rate of taxation on the two classes. Sir John illustrates this by taking the case of two men who have each by industry and thrift accumulated £IO,OOO. One of these invests his money on deposit in a bank or in trade, and receives, say, 5 per cent, on his capital; the other invests in farming, and also clears 5 per cent. They both receive £SOO a year, but they will be taxed as follows: The first will pay 6d in the £ on £2oo— namely, £5, or about 2£d in the £ on his income; ( the other, presuming, which is reasonable, that his improvements are valued at £3,000 and his stock at £I,OOO, will have taxable land to the value of #6,000, on which, at Id in the £, he

will have to pay £25, exactly five tiices as much as the owner of personal property on the same income. In addition, moreover, to this, he will be liable to the graduated tax, because his land exceeds £5,000 in value. " Therefore, setting aside the question " of large estates and the graduated tax "on them, it will be seen that an "owner of land of moderate area, "paying only the ordinary land tax, " will be taxed out of all proportion to " the trader or the capitalist whose "capital is invested in personal property." As to the graduated tax, Sir John expresses the opinion that it passes the line at which taxation ends and confiscation begins. If this is justifiable, he says, in the case of large landed properties on the principle of " so-called—but miscalled —equality of sacrifice," he is, he declares, unable to see why it is not also justifiable in the case of capitalists who draw large incomes from personal property, in many cases without any exertion ontheirpart. " Yet such landholders are the men " whose operations develop the natural " resources of the Colony and furnish " the largest amount of employment to "wage-earners." As to improvements, Sir John points out that the Government deserve no credit for the exemption from the graduated tax. Their original proposal, set forth in the Financial Statement, was that all improvements over £3,000 should be subject, not only to the ordinary, but to the graduated tax—which he stigmatises as an outrageous and most impolitic proposal. What, however, he asks, must be the effect even of the ordinary tax 1 A landowner having, say, £I,OOO in the bank, has to pay at the utmost Is in the £ on the income derived from it, probably much less. If, however, he spends the money in improving his land, in giving work to those who want it, and increasing the produce of the Colony, "he is at once punished by the Government," and has his tax raised from Is to Is Bd—probably v " have to pay double what he did b . "Need I suggest that " this i ;be a great check to improve- " ments." It was within his own knowledge, he added, that this penalty placed ' Parliament on a man for furnishing employment, " together with " the language heard from Ministers on "public platforms," have led to the abandonment of contemplated improvements of considerable value. "The only defence of the tax on "improvements which Mr Ballange "has attempted is that those "who improve beyond £3,000 can "afford to pay it. This appp&rs to " me something of the morality of the " highwayman. To take a man's purse "simply because he can possibly " afford to lose it may be an appro- " priate doctrine for a Jack Sheppard, " but it is not statesmanlike, or even " honest. Moreover, it is worse than " a crime—it is a blunder, inasmuch as " it manifestly discourages the develop- " ment of the resources of the Colony." It is not possible in the space at our disposal to refer to the many other points of interest and instruction in this very able delivez*ance. It is a crushing indictment of the policy and conduct of Ministers, and affords, we are glad to note, demonstrative proof that Sir John Hall will be to the fore during the ensuing session in limiting the mischief they may attempt within the narrowest possible limits.