MORE MISREPRESENTATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7018, 5 January 1910, Page 4

MORE MISREPRESENTATION

In the Melbourne “ Argus ” of Decern-' her 29th there appears an article on “ New Zealand’s Example,” noteworthy for two reasons. One is that it quotes a letter written to the Dondon “Spectator” by a resident of Wellington, and the other that it uses this letter as a peg upon which to hang certain invidious references to this country. The letter written to the “Spectator” is designed to show New Zealand os an awful example of the follies of Liberalism, and to warn the English voter to beware and steer clear of the pit into which New Zealand has fallen, because “to aver that the resumption of large estates has made for the permanent prosperity of the Dominion is to offer an insult to every born New Zealander.” The “ Argus ” dislikes resumption, and in publishing the “ Spectator ” letter—" to be pondered over”—it says: Not only Victoria, but Great Britain, and indeed almost every other country is being advised by enthusiastic New Zealanders to follow tie example of their country in land legislation. . . . . . Great Britain must be taught the lesson, so Great Britain is now being bombarded with reasons why Lloyd Gecrgism, which is based upon Seddonism, should bo accepted.

Now, we cannot be expected to know what “ enthusiastic New Zealanders ” have been saying about the land laws of their country, but it is wildly extravagant to say that this Dominion has bombarded Great Britain with reasons why the tax on land increment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should he adopted because such a policy is based upon Seddonism. There is no tax on the increment of land in New Zealand., The people are content to allow that most justifiable of all means of raising revenue to pass and tax themselves instead. Mr Seddon never at any time discussed the subject seriously, and Mr Lloyd George’s taxes are no more based on “ Seddonism ” than upon Buddhism. Mr Seddon was attracted all his life by the idea of resuming the land itself, settling it, and abandoning the increment for nine hundred and ninetynino years. Mr Lloyd George goes upon the principle not of resuming the land but of appropriating to the State a part of any increased value—the actual antithesis of the plan Mr Seddon regarded as sound statesmanship. So, if a misguided individual has been bombarding Great Britain or any other country with the theory that New Zealand’s land system should he copied as it asserts the State’s claim to the increment of land he has clearly been talking nonsense. Yet though this is the case, the “ Spectator ” has certainly been bombarded with rubbish by the obscure contributor who writes from Wellington to warn the British public of the terrible effects of Liberal land legislation in the Dominion. A few sentences will show the tenor of his letter: The chief objective in New Zealand

appears to have been to ifitionalsie the land at any cost, and thereby-create an army of State eerfs who shall b© at th© beck and call of the pUrly in power. That this objective has been partially reached is evidenced by the fact tn . many State tenants have text compelled to record their votes from time to timo against their own convictions. . . In ■the rul'd districts, loikbowners, fearful of land mortgage and other forms of “Liberal'' - ’ taxation, are curtailing expenses or endeavouring to quit their ©states that -they may leave the country Concerning the system of taxation, obtaining here, tho best that can be said of it is that it has removed the burden of taxation from the should era Qf the merchant and the middleman, .and placed it ’upon those of tho man upon tho land. Tho letter concludes; “If the land and other taxation of the Mother Country is to bo based upon tho laws which have obtained in Now Zealand, all I can say is * God help tho Motherland!’” The signature is “Arthur H. Vile.” If any greater fustian, than this has ever heeu written wo cannot recall having read it. Mr Vila is entitled to his opinions. Ho is entitled to write in these or any other terms about New Zealand to an English newspaper, but the readers of that paper are unfortunate in not knowing how much respect his assertions am entitled to. They aro entitled to none. They aro not even worthy of the “ Argns ” witticisms. /When Mr Vile bilks about State tenants “ compelled to vote against their . convictions ” he is merely talking harmless nonsense, whatever his ulterior motive may be. What compulsion is used upon State tenants in exorcising the franchise? If Mr Vile could prove a single case he would irretrievably wreck the political party now in power. Ho cannot, and, what is ’more, knows ho cannot. Who am the land-owners who are so fearfully anxious to migrate elsewhere? Eor every one ho could name m can designate a score who are busy adding acre to acre. -As for "the burden of taxation placed upon tho man on tho land, what aro the facts? There are 168,447 landholders in the Dominion. Of these 30,000 pay land tax. These old squibs which Mr Arthur H. Vilo appears to think suitable to bombard the Old Country with aro merely tho discarded stock in trade of Opposition heelers in the land of their origin.