Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 606, 15 September 1883, Page 18

It is very doubtful if Bishop Hadfield* exercised his usual good judgment Tuesday at the Diocesan Synod, when commenting on the Act for Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister, and enjoining his clergy never to solemnise any such marriage, ou the ground of its being “contrary to the law and custom of the Church,” meaning thereby the Anglican Church. It is quite true that as the Anglican Church in the colonies is not connected with the State in the same way as it is in England, the Bishop has a ricflit to express his opinion as to wliat hi! cleroy should do, in the same way as °the Moderator of the Presbyterian- Assembly, the President of the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, or the Chairman of the Congregational Union mierht express his own personal opinion on any subject whatever. But, as the Bishop knows, it is not all things which are lawful which are also expedient. And it does not seem very expedient to urge the clergy of any body to show their contempt for the law of the land, or to attempt to bind them not to carry it into effect. In a matter of conscience a bishop or priest may reasonably object to- be bound by the decisions of any Legislature ; but it would be absurd to make a marriage with a deceased wife’s sister anything or that kind. Indeed, the Bishop himself only condemned it as contrary to the law and Custom of the Church , that it is to say, as contrary to certain manufactured regulations as to propriety and expediency. Of course, as a matter of fact, people who . wish to get married to their deceased wives sisters will after the Bishop’s prohibition, simply keep clear of the Anglican Church, and get the ceremony performed elsewhere, and the only result of his unwise censure on the Parliament and the Queen will be that his clergy will lose some of their fees and he himself will, be regarded as setting himself in opposition to the secular “powers that be.” In England, half a dozen additional votes in the House of Lords might at any time make a similar Act to that in force here the iaw of the land, and then in that case the clergy will have to do the ver y whioh their brethren here are told that through all time they must not do„

ON Thursday last week a Bill entitled “Railway Improved Lands,’’ was laid on the table in both Houses of Parliament. It was drafted in consequence of a resolution passed last year in the House of Representatives for taxing “the unearned increment” in the value of lands improved by the construction of public works at the colony’s expense. The present Bill doe 3 not traverse the whole subject, but is designed to tax lands improved by the formation of colonial railways. Clause 5 defines what lands are to be taxed, namely, all those situated “within five miles from the middle line of a public railway, or within a radius of five miles beyond the terminal point of any such railway, or of any section «f such railway, commenced after the 30th day of September, 1852,” excepting lauds in boroughs, town districts, lands occupied by churches, &c, and also excepting all native land-*. By clause 6, the lands referred to shall be “ liable to a contribution towards the cost of the construction of such railway, to an amount equal to onehalf of the amount by which such lands have been augmented in value in consequence _of such construction,’’ “ and such contribution shall be paid to the Crown by the owners of such lands respectively.’’ Clause 7 states that “ the improved value of lands shall be deemed to be the difference between the value of such lands a 3 appearing in the assessment roll prepared by the Property Tax Commissioner under the said Act and in force last prior to the advertising for tenders for the construction of the section of the railway traversing the said lands, and such value as appears in the like assessment roll in force prepared aforesaid, first after the openiogof such,railway for public traffic. Under clause 10, “ If any person shall be dissatisfied with the amount at which the whole or any portion of his property is assessed uuder this Act, he shalL be entitled to call upon the Commissioner to reduce the assessment to a ' certain stated amount as the owner thinks fair, or to purchase the property at 10 per cent, in excess of such stated amount. And by Clause 11, “any property so acquired shall be sold or otherwise dealt with in such manner as the Governor*in-Council may direct.” These are the chief operative clauses of the Bill, and seem calculated for the first Hmq to give practical effect to the very just y* principle of taxing land owners whose property lies adjacent to railways henceforth to be constructed, to the extent of half the increased value given to the lands by the railways in the respective districts. This principle has not only .been recognised, but long tince insisted upoD, by the people all over the colony, though we believe New Zsaland will be the first of the British possessions where such legislation will be carried into effect. Besides the advantage to the Treasury of the amount of the additional, and very righteous taxation of landowners, there will be this, in addition, to be said for the new legi-lation, that it will tend greatly to lessen the construction of political railways, with all the jobbery hitherto practised in jockeying such Bills through Parliament. It will be scarcely worth while, henceforth, for landowners to be very urgent for railways tobeformedatthe public expense in their respective neighborhoods, unless the projected lines are tolerably sure to be worth forming. For, in all such cases, they will be - liable to either taxation of their lands, or to forfeiture. The Bill is to be brought in next session by the • Minister of Public Works.