The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1893.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIX, Issue 9986, 15 March 1893, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1893.

Wken a polemical writer or speaker misstates his opponents’ arguments or premises before he proceeds to answer tjiem, he proves three things—(l) that he is not aiming to establish a truth;. (2) that he has a very low opinion of bis readers’ or hearers’ intelligence; and (3) that he has not adopted for his own guidance any vary high moral standard. The real points of difference between the policy of the present Government and the policy of the present Opposition are perfectly clear, and there is no excuse for misstating thorn or for confusing them with any other issues. Yet in ; Parliament, on the platform and in the Opposition Press —down to the last feeble speech of the Opposition ; leader—we find a constant, unvarying | determination not to express >or to I explain the policy of the Government | at ali, but to state something i quite different from what that policy 1 really is, and then to condemn that i something as if it represented the precise proposals of the Government. The fiscal, land and the labour policies of the present Government have all been highly successful. The gloomy predictions of the Opposition as to “ galloping to a deficit,” “deceiving and disgusting the would-bo settlers ” and “ pauperising the whole of the labouring population,” have been so completely falsified that it is now found convenient to forget that such prophecies were ever made. But the 'gross and wilful misrepresentation of 5 each portion of the Government poKcy lis continued with ever-increasing activity and audacity, and before the I next general election we shall probably | hear Sir John Hall and Mr Kolieston | denouncing their own Property lax S and claiming to bs the authors of all | the Liberal measures that have proved 1 so successful. With this complete and somewhat awkward somersault in view it becomes more than ewr necessary to the Conservative ends that these gentlemen and their supporters should misrepresent, and, as far as possible, confuse the aims and objects of the Government and the Opposition. It is, therefore, especially important that we should keep a verv clear record of what has been I attempted and accomplished by the I contending parties. I We will deal first with their fiscal policies; leaving the land and labour proposals to future opportunities. | With regard to taxation, the policy of the Government is and has been to abolish the long-vexatious and obstructive taxation of all improvements not exceeding the value of .£3OOO held by any one person. To recoup the loss thus caused to the revenue the Government has increased the taxation upon landed properties above the value of .£SOOO on an ascending scale, so as to add one I penny and three farthings in the pound to the taxation of landed properties amounting to or exceeding, I without improvements, the value of .£210,000-a tax which falls chiefly ' on about 400 large capitalists and I companies owning 8,000,000 acres of | land. Thus the owner or occupier of | every moderately-sized farm in the I Colony who is not entirely protected ! by the .£SOO exemption is relieved from the payment of taxation upon his improvements and stock at the cost of a few hundred large laHd speculators. All our working farmers and the owners of small prope/rties, especially if such properties have been highly improved, have been relieved by transferring soma of their late burdens to the large land monopolists who obstruet tbe march of settlement. This is what the present Government has proposed, what the majority of the people’s representatives nave adopted, and what their supporters :i have approved. But how ia it put | before the electors by theao few huuI dred land speculators, their repreI eentafcives, their agents and their | organs? Take first the version I given by the author and defender ! of the Properly tax. When this gentleman addresses his constituents does he dare to tell them the truth ? Dora ho dare say to them, “ This I cruel Government has taken a lot of I taxation off you farmers, but has put it upon me and my friends P” INo ; not one word of the sort; quite the reverse. This ex-Premier, whc» , 1 led the Government which put on thet Properly tax, and resisted every* ■ attempt, to relievo the farmer by tha ■ | exemption of improvements, now* I chooses to address Ir.s constituents! as if he was the champion who hadt taken the tax off, and that the proj sent Government was the offender! who had put it on. if it was not his! I intention to convoy an impression sc 1 1 exactly opposite to the truth, what | can be the meaning o? the words he* used when last addressing his constituents ? Speaking of the present Government, be —the author of the Property tax — said : They still, however, cling to tho ordinal tax on improvement?, and it was within his own knowledge that this penalty by Par- | liament on a man for furnishing employment, together with-the language heard

from Ministers on public platforms, had led to the abandonment of contemplated improvements of considerable value. Coming next to the Leader of the Opposition, wa find him holding out exactly the same false colours. This active member o£ the five million borrowing Ministry—of the Ministry which eclipsed even Sir Julius Vogel in the extent and boldness of its borrowing—now tells us that “ the prosperity of the country is assured if the people will rely upon their own industry and refrain from borrowing.” This ox-minister, who sat up day and night to enforce all the worst features of the Property-tax, and to vote with his colleagues to compel the taxation of the fanners’ growing crops, farm implements, farmhouses, cattle and sheep, has now “ no desire to go back to the Property-tax,” but hopes “ with the help of the people of the Colony to be able to so modify the present tax as to make it purely a .Land tax.” What a strange occupation this would be for Mr Rolloatoa! It is quite true that during last session, the Leader of the Opposition voted with Sir George Grey and Mr Shera in their avowed effort to secure Henry George’s Laud tax, but why does he not .tell hia Haiswell constituents what it all means ? He told his Auckland audience that “ a graduated tax was an inexpedient measure,” and that what he wanted to do with the present Act was “ to make it purely a Land tax.” If this means anything it means what Henry George, Sir George Grey and Mr Shera mean—that every "plot of land, however small, should be taxed, with a view to relieve the large land speculators from the payment of ‘‘the progressive tax,” and the holders of city properties from taxation altogether. But this ia what Mr Eollestoa dare not say to his Hal a well constituents. At the very moment when Mr Roiieston, at Auckland, is offering his services to lead in a peremptory

demand for “the single tax,” bis supporters in tlio Conservative Press are engaged in toying to alarm our farmers and small freeholders by asserting that the diabolical " single tax ” ia the concealed object at which the present Government and its supporters are all aiming, and by which our thrifty small freeholders are to be swallowed up and putt on a dead level with the “idle loafer*’ in one great communistic pool. This is decidedly awkward. Mr Rolleston and the newspapers supporting him should come to o better understanding about this single tax, which appears to be all right it supported by Mr Rolleston, and utterly wrong if attributed to Mr Ballance, who has consistently voted against it We know that one truth cannot contradict any other truth, but when truth is not exactly the object sought, it is dangerous for a number of political guides to he originating accusations against a common enemy, without very frequent and very exhaustive consultation as to the nature of the crimes of which that enemy—in this case the Liberal Government—is to ha accused. Actions, however, speak; louder than words, even to farmers; and that common sense which ia not altogether destroyed by pure air and useful country occupations is very likely to come to the conclusion that the men who have in the past so persistently demanded the taxation of all agricultural improvements, and are now voting against the Government, with Sir George Grey and Mr Shera, for the exemption of all town and city improvements, are not necessarily the only men to be trusted with the protection of the agricultural interests of the Colony.