CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8681, 25 September 1891, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

DR. LAISHLEY SUMS UP THE ANTIPOVERTY SOCIETY DISCUSSION. " Consider both the praise and reproach of every foolish person as ridiculous."A Pythagorio sentence of Demopliilus. TO THE EDITOR. Sin, —Even every wrong-headed man has a redeeming vice, or a redeeming virtue. This, probably, the natural corollary of Solomon's words—"Though thou should bray a fool in a mortar., amongst wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him"is that the fooldoes't know when lie is even hopelessly beaten. Moreover, in addition to not knowing when they are hopelessly beaten, Messrs. Kelly, Piatt, and Co. have a cunning knack of not returning to their charges when they find their footing to be insecure; but instead adopt' Fabian tactics, by breaking fresh ground on each occasion under a pretence of continuing their former charge. Thus (inter alia) the Society ignore my contention (ISth inst. letter) that even if land nationalisation were advisable in 'i country where land lias not been parted with, yet it" would involve robbery or beggary here; and, instead, start off in their following letter ('2lst inst.) into a phase of a priori. land nationalisation argument. So that it becomes impossible to anticipate what kind of pea you may find under the next thimble.

This mode of warfare the Society probably find to be unavoidable when encountering facts and unanswerable arguments. But, under such circumstances, it becomes requisite in closing this discussion, to review it; and before doing so, it. is, at the outset, satisfactory to be able to remark that I have evidently at least succeeded in shaming them out of their propensity for miserable jokes; although, unfortunately, _ the omission has apparently forced them into even a greater quantity of heartless jargon. Now. as pointed out in my l'2th inst. letter, their first charge against me was that I "ifm'i the land tax is a delusion;" to which I replied that I had shown at great length, ami'in full detail, that as a panacea for the exodus, it must be a melancholy delusion.

Their second charge was that I am " apparently quite willing that the labourers should 1 hug' what 'other clelus-">ns' they please provided they do. not 'embrace' the land tax;" but in reply to this miserable, joking nonsense, I pointed out that the whole of Part I. of my article had been devoted to "other delusions," especially to the treatment of Capital and Labour, and gave copious extracts in support of my assertion. Charge three was : " Dr. Laishley assumes it to bo a reproach to the present Government that tire land tax is not merely'a revenue tax. This, sir, we hold to bo its most transcendent merit." Whereupon 'I showed that, according to Professor Fawcett, such a tax as imposes a levy for a purpose avowedly other than revenue, is distinctly confiscatory in its nature, and therefore distinctly dishonest, and therefore inherently vicious. I then exposed the misleading nonsense of their comments, such as that " Land is not capital, for as the doctor himself defines it, capital is the product of former labour. The land tax does not threaten capital." And as the Society had the audacity in their 7th instant letter to say "the appeal now is to common s msc," I wound tip my 12th instant letter by quoting from their first letter a fair specimen of the random ideas which evidently Hood the' Anti-Poverty noddle. So much for the Society's first letter (7th instant) and my first reply (12th instant). In the Society's second letter (10th inst.) they evidently feel driven to tactics oven more discreditable than making false charges, or miserable jokes, or using heartless jargon, for they descend to the low trick of misrepresenting what I had written, and then attempting to ridicule me by bogus sentences. This device I exposed in my 18th instant letter, and therein point out not only that I had already very fully shown the folly of Land Nationalisation and Single Tax in two articles which appeared in the New Zealand" Heualu of 22nd March, 1890, and Ist April, 1890;' but even if Laud Nationalisation were advisable when the State has not parted with any of its lahd, in this colony (apart from other objections to the State becoming landlord) would mean now robbery, or beggary—for unanswerable, and consequently unanswered reasons which I then gave. In the same (18th instant) letter I pointed out (1) that cash has been honestly paid to the State by the present owners, or their predecessors, for the land at prices fixed, or approved, by the State : and (2) that therefore such random ideas—such untrue dangerous nonsense as " Right to the land rests on force, and is unjust because it involves the appropriation of the produce of others without any equivalent, etc. —are propositions too patently ridiculous to require reply. The Society, however, seem resolved on completing their destruction by again returning to the fray in a letter which appears in your issue of the 2lsc instant, and in which they calmly ignore the vital argument that even if land nationalisation were in the abstract advisable it must now mean here robbery or beggary, and again go into discussing the original abstract issue of laud nationalisation, which I have already fully discussed in my '22iul March, IS9O, and Ist April, IS9O, articles, and which, moreover, is I beside the practical Issue for us, because, as I have just pointed out, it is not competent for'

right-minded men now to entertain here for practical purposes any such proposition. To again discuss, therefore, now the abstract issue of land nationalisation would be doubly waste of time but, as Messrs. Kelly, Piatt, and Co., will probably feel aggrieved if I do not in some manner reply to their argument upon the abstract issue, which they so persistently force upon us, it would be ungenerous 011 my part to wholly disappoint them. _ _ V ... I, therefore, invite their attention to the wind-up of an article by Professor Huxley, entitled " Natural Rights and Political Rights," in the Nineteenth Century Review, of February, 1890, which strikes me as not only amusing to read, but awkward to answer :— >' " So the splendid prospect held out to the poor and needy is a mere rhetorical mirage, and they have been cheated out of their cheers by mere ' bunkum.' Consider the effect of a sober and truthful statement of what the orating person really meant,, or, according ; to his own principles, ought to mean, say, of such a speech as this — " ' My free and equal fellow-countrymen,— There is not the slightest doubt that not only the Duke of Westminster and the Messrs. Astor, but everybody who holds land from the area of a thousand square miles to that of a tablecloth, and who, against all equity, denies that every pauper child has an equal right to it, is a'ROBBER. (Loud and long - continued cheers, the audience, especially the paupers, standing up and waving hats.) But, my friends, lam also hound to tell you that neither the pauper child, nor Messrs. Astor, nor the Dake of Westminster, have any more right to the land than the first nigger you may meet, or the Esquimaux at the north end of'this great continent, or the Fuegians at the south end of it. Therefore, before you proceed to use your strength in claiming your rights'and. take the land away from the usurping dukes and robbing Astors, you must recollect that you will have to go shares.in the produce of the operation with the four hundred and odd millions of Chinamen, the hundred and fifty millions who inhabit Hindostan, the (loud and, long - continued hisses; ' the audience, especially the paupers, standing up and projecting handy, movables at the orator.)"' • . j Truly the prospect is " bunkum." But at | the same time it is melancholy to reflect that 1 we have a body of men in our midst who | deliberately advocate the robbery of their I fellow-colonists and that, forsooth, "under the guise of what Messrs. Kelly, Piatt, and Co. are pleased to term in their 7th instant letter, "Peace on earth, and goodwill towards men;" and it is with a feeling of shame that I quote the following sentence from the Society's 18th instant letter : —" We must profess our _ utter inability to see the justice of any claim for compensation." The Society says, " The appeal now is to common sense," and your readers are the Courts—the judges. In closing this review I cannot help pointing out that my original propositions in respect of the Land Tax* viz., That apart from the admitted tax-upon-improvement blot, and apart from injustices, inequalities, and anomalies in detail, it has 110 sound basis for its inception, and is in its scope and principle bristling with absurdities, pro-; iouiully dishonest, otherwise inherently vicious, and otherwise flagrantly impolitic," stand absolutely unanswered, and, I venture to think, unanswerable. It is idle, however, to submit propositions to those who will vol weigh them ; and a body of men who deliberately ignore facts and arguments, and who deny, for instance, the justice of compensation, and who, forsooth, instead, write such nonsense as " right to the land rests 011 force," etc., seem to me outside the pale of controversy. But although Messrs. Kelly, Piatt and Co. appear to be impervious to reason, yet I cannot but think that even they must feel ashamed of the pickle in which I leave them. —I am, &c., R. Laishu:v. September 22. 1891. THE ANTI - POVERTY SOCIETY AND THE LAND TAX. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In your issue of September 21 I read a letter signed Adam Kelly and F. G. Piatt, as vice-president and lion, secretary of the above society, there is just one little matter I wish to refer to. After writing of the tax a farmer with £400 worth of land would pay, the following sentences come : " The selling value of the land would indeed be gone, but has lie not got his sons, or at least his fellowcreatures to think of? Under the present system they have to go beyond the outskirts of civilisation, or else bow their necks under the landlord or mortgagee." Here, sir, is the gist of the whole matter. Mr. Kelly and the Anti-Poverty' Society, don't like to go - beyond the outskirts of civilisation. They forget that somebody did so, is still doing,, and has to do so. In many cases the proprietors, or the fathers of the present proprietors, of the valuable lands near our chief towns were men who did so, and, by their courage, endurance of privations, and industry, overcame • the difficulties. of early settlement, and laid the foundations of the civilisation which Mr. Kelly and his ilk have such a hankering after. Had they not done so, I think we can safely say New Zealand would never have seen Mr. Kelly, and now he thinks his coming has added some value to the land to which he. as part of the State, has a claim. There is still plenty of good land both 011 the East and West Coasts to be had for a reasonable price if you only go far enough hack. Let Mr. Kelly do as others have done, take up a block of 100,200, 509, or 1000 acres—l don't care how much lie has as long as lie lives 011' it and brings it into a state of cultivation. The fact of his doing so will make it possible for some one to go beyond him. And if, after 15 or 20 years of such a life he thinks there is any value or (unearned) increment attached to his land, to which he is not entitled, I will forgive him; but, until he has had some such experience, 1 cannot think his opinions are worthy of much consideration. —I am, &c., Rout. N. Buttle, An Outside Settler, and the Son of An Ohaupo, Sept. 23. Outside Settler.

LAM D OWNERSHIP. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —As the present Ministry of Fadland seem bent on making it a sin for anyone to obtain a bit of freehold, it might not be out of place to refer to the great antiquity of. the right of private ownership of land, now assailed and about to be abolished in this home of humbug. In the oldest book in the h;<nds of man we find numerous instances of individual ownership in land; bur, apart from Scripture, one of the most curious, instructive, and interesting legal documents that has been rescued from the ruins of remote antiquity is the 'Egyptian deed of conveyance referred to in Kent's Commentaries. As such a deed here will shortly (according to Mr. 13allancc) be a thing of the past, you will pardon me, Mr. Editor, in setting out in detail the material parts of this ancient document. It is interesting, inasmuch as your readers will see that for 2000 years at least civilised communities have not only bought and sold laud, but have substantially used the same form of title deed. The deed is in the Greek language, and under seal, with a certificate of registry in a public ofiice, annexed and executed in the year 100, B.C. , or more than a century before the Christian era. It was written on papyrus, and found deposited in good preservation in a tomb in Upper Egypt by the side of a mummy (probablv that of JNeclmtes, the purchaser), and contains the sale of a piece of land in the city of Thebes. It has the brevity and simplicity of a Saxon deed. It gives the names and titles of the sovereigns in whose time the instrument was executed, viz., Cleopatra, and Ptolemy her son, surnamed Alexander. It describes with precision the ages, stature, and complexion by way of identity of each of the contracting" parties; as for instance Pamonthes, on of the male vendors, " aged about 45, of middle stature, dark complexion, handsome person, bald, round faced and straight nosed;" and Semmuthis, one of the female vendors, "aged about 22 years, of middle size, yellow complexion, round face, flat nose, and of quiet demeanour." It then goes on to. state that the four vendors (two brothers and two sisters) have sold out of the piece of landJjelonging to them in the southern part of the Memnoneia, SOOO cubits of vacant ground, one-fourth part of the whole. Bounded "on the south by the royal street, on the north and east by the land of Pamonthes and Bokon of Hermit:, his brother, and the common land of the city, on the west by the house of Tephis, the son of Chalouin, a canal running through the middle, leading from the river. These are the boundaries on all sides. Ncchutes the Less, the son of Asos, aged about 40 years, of middle stature, yellow complexion, cheerful countenance, long face, and straight nosp, with a scar upon the middle of his'forehead, has bought the same for one taleift of brass money, the vendors being the acting salesmen and warrantors of the sale. Necimtes, the purchaser, has accepted the same." The object of my letter is to show that private ownership "in land is an institution hoary with age. The desire and claim for a bit of ground one can call his own is instinctive to the human breast, •ad has been recognised in all ages; and why Lord Bacon gives the reason when he says it is " written with the linger of Almighty God upon the heart of man."—l am, etc., Peter Oliphant.

THE RAILWAY REVENUE. : TO THE EDITOR. "' A,Kindly permit me space to correct a small error in your footnote to the letter signed "Sirius." You say the interest earned by our railways is £2 18s lid per cent. -This

is the Railway Commissioners' statement, but it is not correct. , The real interest earned was only £2 14s lOcl per cent. In order to make it appear that they have earned the higher figures the amount ■ expended ; ;on j unopened lines, £1,065,637, : has been cut out of the account. The Hon. E.Richardson, when Minister for Public Works, resorted to the same expedient, but on my pointing this out, he was obliged to acknowledge he had done wrong, and ask leave to lay an amended Public Works Statement on the table of the House. The Commissioners being responsible to nobody, ot course do as they please, and make out the best case they can for themselves.

They collected last year in railway revenues £1,121,701. This large sum believe I am correct in saying it— not subject to any audit. The working expenses were £700,703, leaving £420,998 towards payment of interest.

The cost of our railways to the 31st March last was £15,344,223, interest on which, at 5 per cent., amounts to £767,211, which leaves a dead loss of £346,213, instead of a "net profit," as the Commissioners state, of £420,998. The Commissioners in their annual report several times say that this amount is "net profit." Their statement is absolutely devoid of truth. Instead of a profit there is a serious loss of £340,213 for the year, which amount has to be paid out of the general taxation of the country.— am, &c,, Samuel Vaile. Auckland, September 23, 1891.

OUR RAILWAYS. TO TUB EDITOR. Sir,—l have noted the remarks of your various correspondents iu connection with the railways here in New Zealand; but, when you take into consideration that, during "the past ten years, our members at Wellington have divided themselves into two parties, and the one for and the other against, what can be expected from such an arrangement but that the Southern members will take the cake, and smile at the folly and simplicity of our Northern members.—l am, &c., G. W. Bin'XEy. Auckland, September 24, 1891. : RAILWAY REFORM. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—A liberal amount of space in your correspondence columns lias been devoted for years past to the above topic. Paucity of population in New Zealand is dead against what has become known as " Vaile's System." When the population of this colony has increased to at least tenfold at what it now stands, then large reforms, as argued by Mr. Vaile, might be entertained, or practised on trial, but not until then. The reform which is at the present time practicable, and which would prove beneficial both to the railway revenue and to the colony itself, can be stated in a very few words, and thus: Quarterly passenger tickets (not annual of necessity) at low rates should be issued for any distance within say 12 miles of every town or city in the colony the population of which exceeds 20,000. The price, of these tickets "should be fixed on a similar rate of basis as that fulfilled by steam ferry companies, viz., at the lowest minimum, so as not to very notably increase the weekly rental of a home. This plan might induce many persons to exchange a city abode for one which is situated a few miles out, and where plentiful garden or orchard space would be Included, as also that of a healthier existence. A suitably early morning train would enable workmen and others to travel daily to their occupation in the city or thereabouts. Of course it would be needful that a reduction on the present cost of single tickets should also be made to accommodate the occasional travellers. Respecting the season ticket, however, it must be borne in mind that such should be issued quarterly, because the cash payment for an annual ticket would be inconvenient to the majority, and would thus prove a sure hindrance to the scheme. Now, turning to the Auckland railway fare tables, it will be seen how the matter stands. Taking the fertile district of Otahuhu (9 miles) as a sample: second-class season tickets are named at £3 for three months, which is five shillings per week, or nearly that sum. Six month-tickets are put down at £5 Bs, and twelve months at £S 15s. Now, supposing that quarterly second-class tickets were issued j at, say, £1 each, such ticket to carry daily any one adult of over 21 years in one family, what an inducement such would be likely to prove towards the establishing of country homesteads, 5 while the railway revenues would probably treble itself in a comparatively short space of time. As an important and needful addition, however, to the foregoing, any package of grown produce, not exceeding 1001b in weight, should be conveyed at the very lowest minimum rate, within the distance named. Something like the foregoing might help to set right the anti-poverty city question, and, too, on com-mon-sense lines.lam, etc., : S. Root.