The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, DEC. 11, 1893.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10217, 11 December 1893, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, DEC. 11, 1893.

In the course of his address at the Masterfcou bauquet the other evening, the Premier had something to sayregarding the railway policy of the Government, He dealt, however, with generalities, and gave very little information beyond indicating that he and hia colleagues still adhere to their expressed determination to alter the system of control in the direction of establishing a closer touch with Parliament, and to reform the management eo that the railways may be made to encourage the settlement of the country. The one important point in Mr Seddon’s remarks is the statement that legal opinions are favourable to the contention that Ministers can appoint whom they like when the term of the present Railway Commissioners shall expire. These opinions will, we infer, lead the Government to deal with that part of the subject on its own responsibility, without waiting for further Parliamentary instruction. It cannot ho claimed that all the details of the Railway Bill of last session were emphatically endorsed at the polls, but it is quire certain that a very large majority of the electors would approve of a Minister occupying a scat upon the Board of Commissioners. And in this connection we may suggest that the department of trade and commerce which it is intended to establish might very appropriately ba placed under tho charge of the Minister for Railways, The Victorian Railway Commissioners will retire in March nest, just a month after the term of our own Commissioners will expire, and it is instructive to observe the trend of opinion in the sister colony on the subject of raitway control and management. Under the Victorian system a Minister of the Crown already has a seat on tho Railway Board, so that the question of Parliamentary control is not. rnieed as a now thing, ‘i he Cabinet, however, is considering alternative proposals which may be helpful to New Zealand politicians in suggesting amendments in tho Government Railways Bill. One proposal is that there should bo only ono Railway Commissioner lor Victoria, who should bo stationed iu the capital

city. The Colony should then he divided into railway districts, each of which should be placed in charge of a competent traffic manage,!'. These traffic managers would be under the control of the Commissioner, and would meet with him at stated intervals and discuss questions of management. The alternative proposal is that there should he three Railway Commissioners, but that instead of sitting aa a Board, and endeavouring to manage all the railways from Melbourne, they should bo each assigned a district. They vrould, however, meet periodically to compare notes hasist each other with suggestions. The latter proposal is the one that is said to ho more favoured by tho Victorian Ministry, and if such a localisation of function is deemed a desirable thing in a compact Colony like Victoria, it may he found much more necessary in New Zealand, where the railway system extends over a thousand miles of latitude, and is divided between two islands, with diverse interests in widely-separated districts. At any rate, the ; . a is worth considering, now that wc are on the eve of making important alterations in our method of management.

The Conservatives have st last discovered the cause of their disastrous defeat at the general election. It seems that a number of small farmers —the people who really turned tho scale in favour of the Liberals —went to the polls under the/impreasionthat all who condemned the Land and Income tax were in favour of tho Property tax. This, wo are assured by our morning contemporary, was a mistake; the Conservatives rather like the Land and Income tax, they only want a change in the incidence. “ It is perfectly possible,” it says, “ to make a Land and Income tax equitable in its application.” This is a very important admission—one which shows a yhiioaopbic determination to submit Ko the inevitable —but our contemporary still clings to tho hope that a large section of tha electors may V e induced to join in the clamour for this abolition ot the ernduated tax. It is scarcely honest, however, in i'ca appeal to these electors, “ The lovjest rate of taxation which it ivjposea on the smallest capitalist who has invested his savings in land is,” it says when writing of the Land and Income tax “equal to one shilling and eightpence in the pound of income, whilst the highest rate it imposes upon capital deposited in the bunks is less than one shilling in the pound on the income it earns.” We cannot, of course, say where our contemporary draws tho line which divides its email farmer from its “ smallest capitalist,” but we know that it is impossible to say what proportion a farmer’s taxation may bear to his income. A farmer enjoys the very great advantage of having the income he may derive from his land, whatever its amount, exempt from taxation. If he should make .£IOOO out of a crop of wheat or a flock of sheep, he will have nothing to pay to the State for his good fortune. If a grocer or merchant, on the other hand, should obtain a similar result from a shipment of tea or sugar, he will have to pay the full amount of Income tax. But our contemporary gives us a still more curious example of the “inequitable provisions ” of tho Land and Income tax, which it specially commends to the attention of the “ small farmer.” “If a man is a large landholder,” it says, “ and owns land to the unimproved value of £210,000, he pays at the rate of 5s in the pound on hia income, but if the same £210,000 were deposited in a bank or invested in Government bonds, the fortunate owner would only bo taxed at something under one shilling in the pound.” Tho small farmer will probably be much impressed with this example. His heart will bleed for the large land-owner who Las to pay £3OOO to the public exchequer from his ample income of £12,000 a year, and he will be highly indignant that capital is not taxed out of the banks and out of the country. But our contemporary’s application of this example is even more remarkable than the example itself. “ Does the small farmer realise,” it asks, “ if he has only £IOOO worth of taxable land, that he pays nearly double the rate of taxation which a man with £IOO,OOO pays if he deposits hia money in tho bank or invests it in Government securities ?” This question was probably intended to convey the idea that the farmer who has £IOOO worth of taxable land pays nearly twice as much in taxation as the capitalist who has £IOO,OOO in a bank, but the truth is, that the former would pay £4 3s 4d, and the latter £250. If tho farmer doubled his income by a rise in the price of y?heat he would still pay £4. 3a 4d; if the capitalise doubled his by a rise in the rate of interest he would pay £SOO. But the incidence of our present system of taxation is by this time familiar to most of our readers. We have admitted again and again that there is room for improvement, and we believe that improvement will be mads ; but the Conservatives were not defeated at the polls because of any miouudersfcandingon the pact of theelectore. Their defeat was due to their own want of candour and to their attempts to discredit a Government that baa honestly attempted to improve the condition of tho people. The moral is obvious, and we hope that it will be taken to heart by the people now principally coticern«d—the directors of the Conservative Press and the members of her Majesty’s dilapidated Opposition.