The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1904. ADDRESSES BY CITY MEMBERS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1685, 15 June 1904, Page 45

The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1904. ADDRESSES BY CITY MEMBERS

It cannot be said that the addresses delivered by the two Opposition members for the city of Wellington—Messrs John Duthie and J. G. W. Aitken —have add'ed much to the store of information on public questions, or have offered any very doadly criticism of the Seddon Administration.— At the same time, the electors must appreciate the spirit that prompted their representatives to give some account of. the work of last Parliamentary session and their part in it, and it gives us pleasure to compliment both speakers alike on the matter and manner of their utterances. Mr Aitken is confessedly a novice in politics, and he, therefore, did not take such a comprehensive view of the situation as his colleague did. He said that be had discovered —as, by the way, all new members do —that Parliament was not conducted on business principles, and he indulged in the usual lament about waste of time and exhaustion of members. As Mayor of the city. Mr Aitken must he well aware that it is much easier to find fault with existing methods of transacting public business than to suggest a remedy for admitted defects. Perhaps, ay hen he has. given ah example in the City Council of how late sittings can be averted and business expedited, his co'mplainfc against Parliament will have more weight. Another grievance ventilated by the senior .member was .that the Premier, when he had made up his mind to a certain course, put cm. lugh-heelerl boots and metaphorically stamped down the Opposition. But had Mr Seddon, having determined on a line of policy, been unable to carry Parliament with him, lie would have been unfit for his position as leader of his party and of the House.

~ Both Mr. Duthie and Mr Aitken liad something to say against the City Single Electorates Bill: but it is difficult to see any cogency in their arguments against the measure. The principle .ox single electorates is genei’ally recognised as soundly democratic, and it has been anomalous to find ‘•'three-cornered” constituencies so long tolerated in New Zealand. The large cities of Great Britain and Australia are all cut up into single electorates, and it cannot be denied that in this way majority representation is better secured than is possible under our system of triple constituencies. The remarks of Mr Aitken on the [Referendum Bill were not altogether sound. He advocated the application of the referendum to social questions, but not to general political matters. Why should there be a distinction? If the constitution of the country is to bo amended in obedience to popular clamour in one direction and to be maintained in another, at the will of legislators, we will be equipped with a piebald system of government. If the country -is to be given the referendum, and its opinion is to he sought upon every public question, then both Houses of Parliament could be abolished, and an executive entrusted with the carrying out of the people’s will, as expressed at the ballot-boxes, not in voting for men, but on particular questions. We are sure that Mi- Aitken does not desire the abolition of Parliament; but that will undoubtedly be the upshot, if any “tinkering” is allowed with the principles of representative government. Mr Du tide’s attack upon the Govern- ' ment was manifestly good-tempered, and liis complimentary reference to the Premier at the out-set was admirable in taste and expression. He found several "measures passed laso session worthy of approval, and with much of the policy of the Government he was.in accordIt is. however, matter for regret that Mr Duthie, as a prominent leader of the Opposition, should express dissatisfaction with what has become the settled policy of this, country with respect to taxation of land. He still prefers the property ..tax, and would abolish the land tax. graduation. The business man knows that the abolition of the pro-perty-tax saved him from paying money year .after year upon his stock-in-trade, and the tax was unfair and irksome to many. It was a tax upon industry, and the graduated land tax is a . tax upon real estate, which according to all canons is more just and equitable. The graduated, land tax yields about £70,000 or £BO,OOO per annum,. and it is not. felt by those who pay it: and if it has-any effect at all its tendency is to induce the large-landed proprietor to subdivide his property. In a. country where areas are to be limited, this policy is in keeping with the proper administration of

the country’s landed estate. Mr .Duthie himself realises this, for while ’he disapproves of the graduated land tax, lie would prefer that the tax should have the effect of ‘ bursting up” large estates, than that the Government should continue its policy of repurchasing. Thus it might be concluded that on this point Mr Duthie is to some oxtent at variance with himself. On the whole Messrs Aitken and Duthie have proved themselves very acceptable representatives of Wellington, and although their attacks upon the present administration are ineffective, their appreciation of some of the Government’s policy measures shows they are not convinced that “no good can come out of Seddonism.”