The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1884.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 7221, 17 July 1884, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1884.

Mb Ormond's speech at Napier, published in our issue of yesterday, was the ablest and most moderate of any yet delivered by prominent candidates, either directly opposed to, or independent of, the Ministry. It was singularly free from rant and cant, scored some good points, and went far to justify the confidence of his friends that in any new political combination he would be suitable to be a member of the Ministry of the future, if, indeed, ho had not previously re-joined his old but, for some time, estranged friends, rle paid a just tribute of respect to the members of the present Government as honorable public men, and wo are glad he did so, because it is not sufficiently borne in mind that, notwithstanding the vague general slanders indulged in by some politicians and papers, it is certainly true that the Atkinson Ministry has been, from first to last, a clean Ministry, free altogether from jobbery or bribery. Mr Ormond expressed himself as unable to state which loader he would support in case of his return to Parliament. Mr Montgomery he considered disqualified by his foolish and reckless attempt at insular separation; Sir George Grey, by the complete want of administrative capacity he has shown when in office ; and of Sir Julius Yogel he was doubtful, because he thought it “necessary at the present juncture of affairs that the colony should be governed by men who were prepared to stay in it and bear the brunt of their mistakes and failures.” Those are words of wisdom well worthy of being taken to heart. Mr Ormond still considers that there is “ room for large reductions in the Civil Service.” Perhaps there might have been at the time when ho made the inquiries, but as the nature of the recent reductions agreed upon has not yet been published, it is very likely that he has already been anticipated by the Premier, during the recent consultations with Messrs Cooper, Seed, and Batkin, on the subject. Mr Ormond is of opinion that no reduction in Customs’ duties is at present practicable, but that, on the contrary, additional taxation will have to be imposed, and that that can only bo done by an increase of the property tax. Taking a reasonable forecast of the probable financial condition of the colony during the next few months, this seems likely to bo the case. But even if there should bo a need for another halfpenny in the £ to be added to the property tax, we are very confident the colony would not be ruined. The wealthy men of New Zealand would simply “ grin and bear it.” Mr Ormond is not in favour of a property tax, but rather prefers a land and income tax, and it is very significant that Jhe does so. We have often been told by partisan politicians, that men of large means escape taxation under the property tax, but are touched to the quick by a land and income tax. Here is an illustration of the way in which these taxes work of a totally opposite kind. Mr Ormond is reputed to be a very wealthy man, and is known to be rather specially fond of his money bags, yet ho would rather have the Democratic land and income tax than the Conservative property tax. To do him justice, he does adduce the strongest objection to the latter impost that could bo named—namely, that “ it taxed the improved settler, and left the man who had not improved comparatively free.” There is something in this, and it is a pity that we cannot find out who it was who really improved the land, and who it was who merely bought the freehold and did nothing «r next to nothing with it. But that is just what is impossible for us to find out, because we have sold the freeholds very long ago when we should have merely leased the lands. In that case the rental of the lands would have superseded the necessity for a land or property tax. Yet, strange to say, Mr Ormond is altogether opposed to the leasing of the waste lands, and mainly for the curious reason that it is “ un-English.” Well, England is a grand country, and has had splendid statesmen to administer it, but still, England is not Now Zealand, and we shall have to do a great many nn-English things here if we want the colony to go ahead. The leasing of the public lands is one of these, and is the only system which will squash the land shark, and also in the long run bring in to the State a fair value for its property. Even Mr Ormond seems to think that notwithstanding its un-English character, land leasing in Mr Holleston’s administration has been a success, for he tells us that he gives “ Mr Rollkston full credit for his efforts in settling the people on the land," and it was lately shown that there was good reason for this, as the number of persons actually so settled during the past year was greater than during any previous period. Mr Ormond is not satisfied with the present system of railway management, and in that matter most reasonable persons will agree with him. He does not, how ever, advocate the sale of the Government railways, but thinks that a certain part of them might be leased as an experiment. The idea is worthy of consideration. The chief cause, however, of the present faultiness of management is, he thinks, the want of sufficient discretionary powers being given to the local managers, and _we have long since ascertained, or fancied that we have ascertained, by inquiry from experts, that this is really the cause of the defects complained of. The constant reference of matters of mere detail to Wellington, causes much needless delay, annoyance, and expense, and an alteration should be made. Wo cannot see why the local managers should not have the same powers of management within their own districts as are given, for instance, by banking companies to their local managers, provided the latter are competent men. Altogether, we regard Mr Ormond’s election speech as one of the best and most suggestive yet delivered, and we trust that he will be returned, as he is a gentleman who, whatever his party political opinions, ought to be in Parliament. The colony cannot afford to dispense with the services of practical-minded thinkers and public men of experience, especially just now.