Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9625, 18 January 1892, Page 4

Me Peeceval has lost no time in coming forward to the rescue of the Colonial credit, and ha has done his first service well. Otherwise, the compiler of the cable messages, who is a good judge, would not have described him as “ably” expounding and defending the New Zealand taxation. It is strange, we may remark in passing, that not one of the many Colonists now in London, who are enjoying the good things they have obtained from the Colony, has lifted his voice on the side of the Colony, while so many have swelled the chorus on the other side. Some of them might have thought it worth their while to at least expose the misunderstandings and mistakes on which so much of the criticism rests. That they preferred the silence which, to the Colony, is certainly not golden, is not at all to their credit. Mr Perceval’s brilliant defence will, we hope, induce some of these recreant New Zealanders to come out of their hiding places and rally round him in the good cause. In the meantime he has,wemayfeel sure, stoppedtherising tide of criticism with a full exposure of the mistakes of the critics, and a true description of the scope and aims of the Land and Income Assessment Act of last session. Of course it is a fact lb at the Act does not add to the taxation of foreign capita!, except where money has been invested in 1 ff rgfinraaß oL unimproved land. We

cannot be surprised if that has not been grasped in London, when in the Colony men who are usually clearheaded have misunderstood it. The controversy which wo had with the Chairman of the Farmers’ Co-operative Association on the subject of mortgagees and their position under the Act was one of the most suggestive possible in this connection. Moreover, Mr Scobie Mackenzie, at an early stage of the Parliamentary career of the Act, fell into errors which were glaring, and were at the same time easily removed. The famous table, constructed by or for the latter gentleman, has never appeared, except in its place in the columns of a highly inconvenient Mansard. If it has been necessary to explain the law in the Colony, how necessary it must be to explain it in London. Why, even so admittedly good an authority as Mr Rhodes, has failed to see that certain demands made upon him were made in error by one of the officers of the department, and has thereupon constructed the stupendous but unsound fabric of a tripledemand, with which he is going about frightening capital oat of its seven senses. If he had not been so scared himself Mr Rhodes would have found a clause in the Act giving Government power to decide all questions of doubt about the provisions of payment, so that the public may be protected against double payment of the tax. Something analogous, probably, Mr Perceval has explained in his letter about the taxation of Companies. We remember, indeed, Mr Scobie Mackenzie telling the House in horror-stricken accents that the banks were the pets of the Government, having obtained the car of “that astute politician the Colonial Secretary,” whose track was, Mr Mackenzie declared, in every line of the Bill. We do not suppose that Mr Perceval has quoted Mr Scobie Mackenzie, but we feel sure that be has exposed all serious fallacies.