The Otago Witness.

Otago Witness, Issue 1756, 18 July 1885, Page 17

The Otago Witness.

WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY.

SATURDAY, JULY IS, 18S5.

We published in our last issue a trenchant letter from Mr J. Aitken Conner on the Land Bill, now before Parliament, which has been framed mainly with the view of consolidating the various laws in force relating to the Crown Lands of the Colony. Mr Connell is perhaps better acquainted with these laws than any other man in Otago, and therefore speaks with some authority. He condemns the bill as cumbrous and wordy, and then proceeds to criticise a few of its provisions. We agree with Mr Connell that it is a pity a 'matter of so much importance as legislation affectingsettlement on the land should excite so little interest in the public mind. The fact is, however, that, so many details are involved that, until the shoe pinches, few have time to study the question, and we are therefore the more indebted to Mr Connell for giving us his views on the bill in question. He has evidently no confidence in the present Ministry, or in their competence to deal with the land laws in a fair and proper spirit. He considers that instead of constructing land bills out of their own inner consciousness they should consult Commissioners of Crown Lands, members of land boards, and other officials, and — last, not least — no doubt Mr Connell himself. They might do worse, as, though we cannot always agree .with Mr Connell, we must admit that he is always ready to give a reason for the faith that is in him. He sums up his main objections to the bill in the following terms : —

The ingenuity with which the framers of the bill have devised means to extract the last drop of blood out of Crown tenants and purchasers of crown lands ; the provisions for forfeitures, 'confiscations, actions, distresses; the way in which things that are not rent are made to mean, and declared that they shall mean, rent, in order that distresses may be levied ; the provisions for seizing the portion of purchasemoney a man has paid, and sticking to that ; for distraining and suing for other parts of the purchase-money due but not paid, and sticking , to that ; of confiscating the land in respect of which these payments have been made, and sticking to that; of confiscating certainly a considerable portion of the value of improvements, and sticking to that; and of retaining carefully the power to confiscate the whole, and of sticking to that, and generally bringing ruin upon the settler — with other conditions and provisions of a like kind— would be an everlasting disgrace and reproach to a parliament of Irish "landlords legislating for_ Irish tenants; and yet lhe-;e are the provisions which the Parliament of New Zealand is asked by the present (government to pass into law. He condemns especially the wording of the clause whjoh awards three months'imprisonment to persons who do not occupy lands in accordance with the contract in the case of deferred payment "exclusively for then- own use and benefit," or, to use a single word which has had a special significance of late, divm-

mies. We agree with him that as the clause is worded it would be extremely difficult to convict; but we are quite of opinion that the real offence is worthy of punishment quite as severe as that provided in the bill if the culprits can only be caught. He comments strongly on retrospective provisions bciiig introduced which entirely alter the conditions of the contract in cases where parties have taken up land under the present Acts and failed to keep up their payments, in which case the holders would, if the new Act comes into force, not only lose the land, but the value of their improvements. Such legislation is unjust in itself, and doubly unjust when it is made retrospective, and so overrides covenants entered into under the express sanction of the Legislature. We sincerely trust the bill will not be pressed this session ; but if it is, we hope some competent member — Mr Scobie Mackenzie, for example — will make it his business to carefully study it and expose its glaring inconsistencies. Meanwhile, holders of de-ferred-payment licenses should read Mr Cornell's letter and "mark, learn, and inwardly digest it." No doubt it is' rather long — that is a fault common to all Mr Connell's letters — but it contains a great deal of food for reflection.

The agreement arrived at between the Government and their supporters on Thursday is so far satisfactory in that it pretty well expresses the feeling of the country. The most objectionable parts of the Ministerial policy have been kept out, and the Ministry themselves remain in. Under the new restrictions there is no reason why they should not carry on the Government of the country and the business of the House to the satisfaction of everj r body. The position is not perhaps a very dignified one for Ministers to be driven into, but we are not altogether prepared to blame them for not resigning. The wish of their supporters was distinctly opposed to any such step. On a direct question of. want of confidence they were in possession of a majority. There was no reasonable prospect of finding any other administration more likely to be satisfactory. In such a peculiar situation great allowances must be made for Ministers, and we ought not to be too much in a hurry to judge hardly of thqir decision.

For the Freetrade principle the debate of Wednesday evening forms a decided victory. The attempt to introduce a Protectionist tariff has unmistakably failed. If Ministers had believed that Protection was more acceptable to the country than to the House they would have asked for a dissolution. But as it is the Protectionists, after being defeated all along the line, have surrendered at discretion. The result cannot but put a check upon the spread of their doctrines. After such a catastrophe it will be some time before any Minister repeats the attempt to bring in a Protectionist' tariff. It is true there were Protectionists like Major Atkinson voting on the Freetrade side out of mere objection to the raising of any further taxation through the Customs. But the main issue was unmistakable. It was the Freetraders who carried the day, and it is pretty safe to prophesy that, whatever may be said on the other side, the Freetrade party will gain all the prestige as well as" the practical results of victory.

The modifications in the local government policy form a great improvement. The limitation of the subsidies allows the Colony to see its way as it goes along. The withdrawal of the power proposed to be given to looal bodies to borrow on their subsidies was a foregone conclusion. Suoh a provision was almost insane, and how the remainder of the Cabinet allowed the Treasurer to insert it in his bill can qnly be aooounted for by the magical influence which he seems to exercise over all his colleagues. There are still many other modifications to be made in Committee before the policy of the Government can be rendered acceptable, but since there has been so little difficulty about the weightier matters of the law, we need not anticipate any dis-, play of perseverance about the mint, annis, and cummin. The Government, moreover, have learnt a l£sson as to the temper of the House. If they had brought down their Customs Duties Bill to its second reading, and fought it first on the question of principle, their defeat would have been far less ignominious than it . is. But they tried to be too clever by half, and counted upon dividing the ranks of the Freetraders over the particular merits of ihe different items in the tariff*. Fortunately, Mr Scobie Mackenzie and his little band were not to be caught by this manoeuvre, and it only served to make things much worse for the Government than if they had followed the more "usual and straightforward course. The best thanks of the Colony are duefo this small knot of Freetraders for the firmness with which they put principle before party, and the judgment with which they treated the position. It is pleasing to notice that Otago members played the most important part in the Freetrade ranks, Messrs Pyke, Scobie Mackenzie, and Baeeon being specially prominent.

The natural alternative to the increase of customs duties might be supposed to be the addition of another farthing to the property tax. This, at least, is as equitable a way of raising additional revenue as can be found, for last year the property-owners were unduly let off. And it has also the advantage of being 'the easiest chaunel for taxation. The Government, however, propose tb tide over the difficulty by postponing the payment of the £50,000 for the deficiency Mils, and charging the defence works of the year .to loan*. A good deal has been said during the last fortnight about localising the property tax in lieu of granting subsidies to local bodies. But this is open to two grave objections. In the first place it deprives the Colony of' the tax which can most 1 easily be adjusted to meet the ever - changing requirements of the Colony. In the next it would give to him that hath, and leave the counties which most want "opening up destitute. Sir JULIUS Vogel came into office last year breathing forth storms and slaughterings

against the property tax as the^root of all evil. • Not the least of the results of his administration of the public finance is to demonstrate that the. property tax is invaluable, and cannot be parted with, though it is of course possible to overload this as any other source of revenue.

The introduction of postal notes proposed in a bill recently introduced in the House by the Treasurer is a useful little reform. We would suggest that there is room, for another small improvement in our postal arrangements — namely, the introduction of postcards to England. The convenience which these would afford would be very great, and we believe that if their price were fixed at, say, threepence, the result would be a considerable increase to the postal revenue. When a letter is written home by a colonist, he feels' that he dares not put off a friend so distant with the short scrawl which is permissible when letters are frequent and distances short. There is a large class of correspondence which is not worth sixpence plus the trouble of writing a long letter, and yet is well worth the threepenny post-card. This includes not only descriptive letters to friends, but small inquiries and little wishes which it is not worth the trouble and expense of writing a letter about. We have little doubt but that there would be a considerable increase of English ' correspondence if the facility of threepenny post-cards were afforded. Penny post-cards are already largely in use between England and India. To apply them between England and New Zealand would probably lead to a diminution of the postal revenue, while the postage for a letter remains at sixpence. But we might go half-way in that direction, and add considerably to the public convenience without any loss of revenue, and even, we believe, with some gain to it.

The means by which the Government propose to make up for the loss to the revenue occasioned by the withdrawal of the Customs Duties Bill are in the highest degree objectionable. The one merit of the policy brought down in the Financial Statement was that it broke away from the kite.-flying traditions of Major Atkinson, and was an honest endeavour to meet our liabilities and live within our jneans. The Government now propose to abandon any attempt to pay the deficit left by Major Atkinson out of taxation, and to charge the cost of the constabulary engaged upon permanent defence works out of loan. There is perhaps some excuse to be made for the last proposal, by which it is expected .that £20,000 will be saved to the revenue But we trust the House will enter an effecj tive protest ' against the renewal of the system of borrowing for current expenses, for that is what the issue of Treasury bills for.the £150^000 deficit means. No one can suppose that at the end of two years we shall be more inclined to meet these bills than we arej now. They will be renewed and renewed .until some Treasurer has the boldness to'~put them down to our permanent debt. It must be - fresh in everybody's memory how plearly Sir J. Voqel last year ' pointed out the danger of keeping on a floating debfc'with no intention of meeting it, and we ■ trust the house will have the courage to "endorse- the I opinions he then expressed, and determine io wipe off this debt as early as possible. Nor is it as if there were any great difficulty in raising the taxation to do so. Another farthing on the property tax would in two years clear off the whole amount and leave something to spare. Last year the property tax was by Sir Julius Vogel's mistake unjustifiably reduced by three-eighths of a penny. It is only fair that at this hard j pinch it should be raised. We know the I temptation there always is both to the I' Treasurer and to the House to avoid the ! imposition of< taxation in times of depression by creating a floating debt ; but after all the cant that has been talked during the last fortnight in the House about the necessity for looking oto position in the face, stopping borrowing, and so forth, we trust that hon. members will practice what they have f been preaching. We have" had enough of putting off the evil day. Let us show that we are really in earnest in trying to pay i our debts, especially when there exists a means of doing so which is in no way oppressive. The property tax remains as it was in better times, and with the advantage of an undue remission last year. The course before the House is plain.

Thk Treasurer has been" kind enough to forward us advance proofs of the speech which he delivered in the House last Friday week in summary of the debate on Sir George Grey's no-confidence motion. To that speech we understand he attaches great importance as a defence of the Ministerial policy, and though its length precludes any detailed criticism, we propose to touch upon some of its most striking points, omitting all references to those parts of his policy which he has since abandoned.

Referring to the proposal that the property tax exemption should be reduced to £200, the Treasurer states that whatever amount could be brought in by such reduction would be more than counterbalanced by the enormous increase in the number of taxpayer.!? under the Act, about 10,000 he estimates. Here, again, we fully agree with him, though we should ' have liked, to hear" what arguments he could bring against an increase* of the present property tax by one farthing, which is what we "believe to be really required. Sir, J. Vogel next replies to the insinuations of Sir Qeoege Grey as to his connection with various companies, and in this he hits the proper tone to a nicety, pointing out , that the Government had' replied to the Telephone Company that they would not accede to its demand, except through the Supreme Court, and that Sir (3 ( . Ghey had not only allowed, but t<? same, extent induced him to Jo^n the board' of Ihe Agricultural Company. As regards the West Coast and Nelson railway, the Treasurer also scores' a point by showing tl^at it 'is entirely consistent with prevkras legislation introduced tiy the Hah €k>Yerij-

rnent. Under the ~Act of 1881 the company would be entitled to land of onethird of* the amount expended tip to a certain amount. By the measure of last year the 'company receives a-half instead of a-third, but with the very important provision that no land, however worthless, shall be valued at less than 10s an acre. The new Act, if move tempting to the speculator, is also more advantageous to the Colony. The Treasurer then hits Mr Bkyce very hard as to the estimate formed of his administration by the Natives, asking whether it is desirable that the Native Minister should be detested. Referring to the Native lands policy, he points out that whilst settlement is very desirable it is important that the interests of the Natives should be protected. The provisions of the new bill amount to this: that if the Natives wish to sell large quantities of land hurriedly they must sell to the Government ; in the ordinary course of things they will be able to sell to private persons, but it must be through the Government. As regards the indebtedness of the Colony, Sir Julius Vogel does not, as he might have done, mention that Queensland is more heavily indebted in proportion to population than New Zealand, but appeals to the large public works and borrowing policies recently adopted in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia as showing that the wisdom of the policy he introduced into New Zealand has been generally recognised. No doubt there* is some force in this contention, but it might be added that the amount we have already borrowed is a reason for borrowing less in the future. The Australian Colonies have got their borrowing and public works prosperity with its sequence of heavy taxation before them. We, on the contrary, are drawing near the end of our tether. Passing over- the arguments in favour of a Laodicean commercial policy — the happy phrase is Mr Pyke's copyright— we light upon an admission about the property tax which is of value at the present moment. Defending himself against Mr Montgomery's reproaches of having reduced the property tax last year on the ground that Major Atkinson had already issued £150,000 of debentures, which did not 'fall due till March 1886, the Treasurer points out'that the property tax is, like the income tax at Home, the easiest channel for temporary alterations to meet temporary emergencies. Lower down we find an instructive remark as to the political effect of French and German Protection which may give the reason for Prince Bismarck's sudden- adoption of Protection after his Freetrade declarations of 1874-5. Sir Juhtjs believes that the desire of Belgian and Dutch manufacturers to take l ' advantage of the natural' outlets of their productions in France and Germany will lead to the voluntary incorporation of Belgium in France and Holland in Germany. In defending the necessity for the increase of taxation through the customs, the Treasurer points out that we raise less proportionately to our population through the customs than any other Colony. The working class, he contends, do not contribute sufficientty to the revenue, seeing that they receive £4 direct from jbhe State for educating each of their children. As to borrowing, he shows that the present (jovernment ar,e spending less borrowed money than their predecessors, and makes some very cogent remarks about subsidies : m There can be no greater or more essential humbug than for any person, inside of the House or out of it, to say that he objects to borrowing, and. yet to oppose our proposal to charge these subsidies on consolidated revenue instead of giving, as we have been doing, huge sums of money out of loan to be expended in this direction. I can understand the person who boldly says, ' Go in for borrowing for this purpose ' ; but to say that he dislikes borrowing and at the same time oppose the charging of roads and bridges on consolidated revenue, is altogether inconsistent."

L,ocal Bodies Powers and Finance Bill' seems to have passed its second reading without any serious opposition. Indeed, there ig not much left of it to oppose. Looking upon it as the outcome of the most serious political agitation of the last two years, it $us.t be considered a great disappointment. That there should be so little wool after so much cry is almost humiliating. But we do not see much hope of any more satisfactory measure being provided by referring the question to a Koyal Commission. < That course was recommended by us last year, but the matter has got past that stage now, Many as were the objections taken by various speakers on Tuesday night, it is remarkable that not one single one offered any suggestion as to the lines upon which a bill might have been drawn up. So far as we are aware, the only attempt, except that of the Government, to deal constructively with the question was the outline of a scheme which we presented in these columns last January. Since then there has feen plenty of destructive criticism, but lo one has attempted even to hint as to svhat would be practicable., Under these jircumstances it seems to us that it would lave been mere captiousness to throw out ;he Government bill. There is perhaps not nuch to be said for it, but at least it is not possible now to say much against it. Its ims are of omission, not of commission. As ye have pointed out, there must be modificaiions in committee, notably with regard to ,he scale upon which the subsidies are ;o be drawn up, but we see nothing ;o justify the House in making any urther alterations than the Government can reasonably consent to. It seems ,o us absurdly inconsistent of Major Atkinson, after all the storm he has raised Ibout the borrowing propensities of the Government, to object to their local governnent policy because it transferred the Sbst of roads and bridges from loan to ■evenue. A million Colonial loan for local government purposes and power to local bodies 0 borrow upon their rates is the scheme >ropounded by the leader of the Opposition. 1 this is what the so-called party of economy yrjshes to substitute for the extravagant

policy of the Government, we may gain a fair idea of the amount of reality there is in their professions against borrowing. For the rest the debate seems to have produced nothing remarkable except a slight resuscitation of provincialism by Mr Barron and one or two others. The second reading of the bill was carried without a division, and it is evident that the practical debate over its provisions has been left to committee.

We shall not attempt to express any opinion as lo the gravity of the crisis that seems to be recurring in the negotiations with Russia. No doubt Lord SALISBURY is not- so complaisant as Mr Gladstone was, and if the Russians mean war, he will give them every satisfaction. On the other hand, it is not to be- supposed that he would do anything wantonly to provoke war. The war fever which raged in England three months ago has passed away and the reaction set in. A war now would need to have serious justification to recommend itself to the House and the country. Nor does Lord Salisbury's speech of last May, defining the policy which we should observe towards Russia, give any reason for alarm. That policy, he stated, should be to fix a point beyond which we could not allow the Russians to advance, and tell them so plainly. A straightforward policy of this kind seems to us far more likely to have a peaceful result than the alternate threats and concessions of Mr Gladstone. Russia knows now that she has to deal with a Government which will be as good as its word, and that it will be useless for her to bounce. If she wants war, she can easily procure it ; but if her professions of peace are sincere, there does not seem to be anything in the attitude of the British Government to prevent her honourably coming to terms. At the same time, if war should break out, it will be generally felt that it was a pity England changed horses in the middle of the stream. The responsibility for negotiations such as those which have been going on with Russia should be undivided. It is true that Lord Salisbury has announced his intention of resuming from the point where his predecessor -Jeft off. But there will still be a feeling- that Mr Gladstone's friendly personal relations with Russia might have led to the avoidance of war if he had remained in office. Nor can he shirk the responsibility of having resigned when there was no real occasion for him to do so, and knowing that he left the negotiations with Russia to be concluded by an Administration hostile to Russia. No fall of consols is, however, reported, and we trust that the situation is not so serious as the telegrams would imply. A war now would certainly in itself be less popular in England than it would have been three months ago.