New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1886.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 743, 28 May 1886, Page 16

New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1886.

Unquestionably the Financial Statement delivered on Tuesday evening by Sir Julius Yogel was in some respects a surprise. The suddenness of the announcement, made in the afternoon, that the Statement would be made the same evening was rather startling, as an impression had been created that its delivery would be delayed to a later date than that at first indicated. The reasons given Jby the Treasurer for withholding earlier notice were, however, entirely satisfactory. There is no doubt that much loss to revenue on the one hand, and inconvenience to individuals and to trade generally on the other, has been occasioned through speculative clearances in anticipation of a coming Budget, and the Government acted very wisely in seeking to minimise this evil. The character of the Statement formed the next great surprise. People had been prepared, by previous rumours, to find the Budget drawn on the lines laid down by the Premier at Invercargill. But they were not prepared to find the impress of later Ministerial counsels so strongly imprinted on every line of the Budget as oroved to be the case. .The total abandonment of the position taken up in the earlier part of the recess was prominently noteworthy. Not only the Treasurer, but also the Premier, had stated in their earlier speeches that notwithstanding the rejection of last year’s proposals they T*rnnl<l tavfi to be brouerht down again

in the next session, and that Parliament would be obliged to adopt either these or some equivalent proposals. Yet now we find the Treasurer stating, “I cannot say that additional taxation is necessary this year, for it is not; on] the contrary, I can do with less.” That is, of course, a very gratifying announcement, and it seems ungracious to receive it in any carping spirit, yet we feel bound to point out that there is a deduction to be drawn from the fact. If tne Treasurer does not need this year that additional £IOO,OOO of taxation which the House last year refused him, he could not have needed it then. Indeed, he has himself given the proof that he did not really require it. By announcing a surplus of £37,000 on the year’s transactions, the Treasurer has admitted that taxation to that extent

more than was absolutely necessary was levied. Consequently his proposals involved taxing the people to the amount of £137,000 more than was really wanted to provide for the public services. Surely it is well that the House refused to accede to a demand which events have proved unwarrantable. And yet the Treasurer in his Budget speech expresses the “ great regret ” with which the Government “feel themselves debarred from again submitting similar proposals to the same House.” Few will share their regret. The Treasurer says plainly he would have liked to increase the, Customs tariff in order to relieve the Property Tax. In this wish he will not find that the general public sympathise, however acceptable such a step would be to the large property-owners. It would scarcely be a popular step in these dull times to increase the imposts on articles of common consumption for the sake of relieving the propertyowners of a farthing in the pound or so on their possessions. Sir Julius Yogel contended quite fairly that as it was a favourite argument of the Temperance advocates that diminished consumption of alcohol would leave more money available to pay other duties, therefore they should not object to pay increased taxation in other directions to make up for the loss sustained through falling off in liquor duties. This is perfectly sound reasoning, assuming that more revenue is needed, and doubtless if this could be shown to be the case the requisite taxation would be granted. But hitherto it has not been shown that further burdens need be inflicted on the longsuffering taxpayer, and we cannot see that the Treasurer has any reason to bewail the refusal of the House to do so. Nor can we sympathise with any complaints of this sort. If the Government disliked the action of the House in refusing the extra supplies, why did they submit to it ? They were not obliged to do so. But having submitted, and having consented to carry out the House’s will, it is hardly dignified now to indulge in querulous complaints. While, however, we may take exception to certain details of the Statement, and may find it necessary to criticise some of its proposals, we cordially and unreservedly recognise both its generally moderate character and the great skill with which it is constructed.