Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 849, 8 June 1888, Page 27

(fFpp-.Xkthc Few-ZfiaiAkwi. Times, June 2.) Mki Ormond’s notice of motion came Upon the House yesterday somewhat as a surprise. His nclion is lygDtimed and judicious. It will ennlffe the general financial queejficiP. to be discussed as a whol.c, i'astead of the taxation hail’ kpß'g taken separately from ihn. retrenchment half, and prior to latter, which we so earnestly deprepreeated yesterday, W[o are very glad to notice that top i?remjer recognised the njcpripfcy of-our suggestion, that before lire House vs as (sailed on, lo.dpal xyith the varioup p,rop,nsals for fresh taxation it sh,ou,ld have an, opportunity oS considering ca<rQ,ful.ly whether the retrenchment already mad 6 and further contemplated by the Q-'overnmen,t wero sufficient and satisfactory, or whether by makiiag larger iu th,e expenditure the of raising ao heavy an additional au,m. by taxation could not be ofiviatecb As we pointed out, it would pmphati'aally bo “ putting the paH be-. fore the horse ” to go into question of the new tariff before, the other phase of (i, a financial question shnnlff hays been thoroughly dealt This Sir Harry Atkinson explicitly admitted in iiia remarks yesterdaVx sad we take it that in dob&tiiag hgp O.rm.ond’s res.o.l uti.ous the Hou.se will have fajlli o.p port unity of indicating to, tho Governmeut its opinion on, the point raised., Tho Wellington Chamber of Commerce also, we notice,, adopted at their meeting th/e same view? of the matter. The gist of Mr- Ormond’s motion may'be defined as consisting in a plea

that the country should be “let down” a little more “ gently ” than is proposed in the very drastic policy propounded by the Premier. He says in effect: “ You tell us that if the school age be raised you can save £25,000 and remit a like amount of taxation. Let us, then, raise the school age, and save £25,000 of taxation ! You say that if subsidies to local bodies be abandoned the increase in the tea duty can be dispensed with. Let us do without subsidies and escape the increased tea duty ! You say that unless the balance of deficit be funded a special extra duty of 1 per cent must be levied for two years on every import whether otherwise dutiable or free. Let us fund the deficit and avoid this impost !” With the first of these proposals, we need hardly say, we entirely agree. Indeed we would go still farther, and charge a 6rnall school-fee, which nobody would really feel as any hardship, and which would materially relievo the Consolidated Fund of the excessive burden at present imposed upon it by the enormous Educational expenditure. That the proposed increase in the tea-duty will bo honestly felt as a' burden we do not for a moment believe. The tax is a most legitimate one, and can be collected at a minimum cost. But we do not at all like the proposal to make out of it a perpetual endowment for local bodies. We cannot think the Customs a proper source from whence to draw these subsidies. And it is open to the gravest doubt whether the continuance of the subsidies be at all defensible. The time appears to us to have arrived when people must be prepared to tax themselves for their own local requirements instead of relying on aid from the colonial revenue. There are undoubtedly some few exceptional cases in w’bieh assistance moy have to be granted, but they should be specially treated "as exceptional, and not made the basis of a general rule. As to tho third point—tho funding of the balance of the deficit instead of paying it off during two years—them is much to he said on both sides. S,ir Harry Atkinson’s proposal to face the position, and, by an exercise of selfdenial, to avoid any further augmentation of our public debt by the addition of deficits, represents Undoubtedly tho more proper, manly and selfreliant course, but it is fairly open to consideration whether, iu viow of the particular circumstances of the case, a less stringent policy uffg.ht not bo warrantable. At I any rate, it is highly desirable • that the proa- and cons should be exhaustively discussed from a non-party , standpoint before this new and singu- [ laily oppressive and irritating socalled “ primage ” duty is adoptedBut, while we urge the advisableuess of affording every facility for an independent and non-partisan discussion eff the whole financial situation* feel bound to, warn those who have i‘, so precipitately withdrawn their support from the Government, ou thia j question that they run a serious visk of defeating thei?, own ends and of playing into the bands of those wd&o would impose a far moy<& stringent tariff than this whiefi has given theca such dire , umbrage. The present Ministry can hardly submit su tamely as did their predecessors to. the operation of Mr Scobie Mackenzie’s celebrated programme—“ Keep them in and their measures out 1” We have reason to ! believe that a tolerably plain intimation baa been given, or will be given* to the so-called “ Freetrade ” section I of the Ministerial party that the Government are not disposed to bavo their measures carried only by the votes of political opponents, and that unless they can depend, upon the loyal support of their side on all vital questions of policy they may find it desirable to retire from, a position which could not in that case be retained with dignity ; in which event the presentOpposition,, ou attaining office, would probably impose a tariff still more . siriugenfc than this one. We have always protested against party being ! made a fetish of, but some organisation is indispensable if the public business I is to. bo carried on with any order or . certainty* and these irregular spurts ;of independent action on vital quesi tions have a tendency to substitute | chronic disorder and uncertainty, j There are other and better and more | effective methods of attaining the ends j aimed at. Meanwhile Mr Ormond’s | action, as amicus curies, may do much j to clear the way toward a better uuj derstanding.