Questions and Answers.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 536, 25 November 1890, Page 3

Questions and Answers.

[TO the EDITOBs] Sir,—l forward you a copy of the three questions put by me to Mr Arthur at his meeting last Thursday evening. Ag they were put to the candidate from the public Eirm, I should be obliged if you could room for the full text in youj? next They were as follows 1. Do you think it is fair to the taxpayers of the colony, that while the usual rate of pay to highly skilled mechanics for full time is only £3 per week, so many persons in the public service should be receiving salaries ranging from £6 to nearly £2O per week, with prospect of compensation or pension p” 2. “Would you advocate that in future no more pensions or compensation be paid to Cijil servants, excepting to those now in receipt of pensions, and in cases where physical injuries have been received in the public service ?" ?• “K elected, would you encourage legWatlong limiting the area of land which Oouldbeheld by one individual or family W »y 1000 acres arable, or 20,000 acres of pastoral land ? * first question was merely asking Mr Arthur for an expression of opinion, if he a certain matter was fair to tkc tarpdyers of the colony, but Mr Arthur did not answer the query, and instead of doing jo, told us that in Australia, where he said the people were not fools, £5OOO a year was paid as salary to the Chief Commissioner of Railways, and the agent of the Rothschilds was paid £20,000 per annum, and of course, the Rothchilds generally knew what they were about, or Minething to that effect. A great writer has stated that the world contains both " knaves and fcols, but mostly fools,” so it appears opinions differ. I venture to suggest that a clever man in receipt of only £l5O a year would have a very distinct opinion of the degree of intelligence possessed by a large and heavily taxed compiunity who thought they were unable to folye the problem of railway management tnemselves. but could only rise to the thought that it was better for them to send to England . for a man who was not ft fool, and give him £5OOO a year to teach them. Australians may be able to afford such luxury, New Zealanders cannot. As to the Rothschilds, according to a late estimate the family in Europe are possessed of £200,000.000 and their income £7,000,000 per apnum.. I again suggest there must be some difficulty in spending such an income, and no doubt they are delighted to pay away £20.000 a year to a man who certainly cannot be a fool. In New Zeaund it is different; and although we New Zealanders are a larger family than the Rothschilds, our income does not amount to seven millions, and we have pot the same difficulty in spending it, ‘fhe second question also Mr Arthur did BOt answer fully. The question refers to pensions or compensation. With regard to pensions, Mr Arthur said any person joining the service since 1878 was not entitled to a pension, and he approved of that, but he did not say a word about payments of compensation, to which, under some Act, I am told, Civil servants are entitled upon their retirement, to a sum equal to one 'month’s salary for every year of good f-eryjee. It is in reality pension under another name. Of course persons in the public service, like everybody else, should have ■efficient pay to be able easily to put by enough for their needs in tickness or old age : but when we consider that Government pay 2? sure, that there is no lost time, and there are other advantages besides which make the Mrvrte attractive, and also that good honest Work is done in private walks of life without any such advantages; for the State to pay pldMler toMptasaiies, except on account oj

injuries at any time, and especially now, when people are leaving the country, when taxes are heavy, and depression great, ie, in the opinion of many colonists, wrong. It could scarcely be expected Mr Arthur would say yes to the third question, but he was not justified in narrowing it down to mean 20,000 acres of barren country upon which a single man or family could noteget a living. Land of such a description could bs left to take care of itself for the next thousand years or so; there is, I believe, a great deal of land of a belter quality in the colony. Of course No. 3 is aimed at land monopoly. Probably Mr Arthur understood that, although he did not say so. He intimated he did not know whether 1000 acres of arable land would be enough for one person or family, but he was quite sure 20,000 acres of pastoral land in some parts could not be. Now, sir, the question does not refer to barren country, and it is well known that there is a great quantity of pastoral land of which 20,000 acres would be ample for a family to live upon ; and besides it would be impossible for 99 per cent of the people to have their ambition gratified by the possession of a freehold, as Mr Arthur says they wish to have, if the present system of right to hold an unlimited area is continued. Io reference to the questions of theW.M.P. Association, I will refer only to the answers given to a part of the first, and the last. To the question, would you advocate that a one per cent, tax on the unimproved value of all land be substituted for a property tax ? The answer was No. And when asked, would you be in favor of taxing Native land 1 The answer was Yes. From the above it appears Mr Arthur is really in favor of a land tax, but it must be on Native land only, A problem 1 Solve it who oan I—l am, etc., J. Sisley,