The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1883.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2765, 3 August 1883, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1883.

When the delivery of the Financial Statement a month ago was followed by the usual aimless wrangle, we predicted that there would be no proper discussion of the finances this session, and our prediction has been, amply verified. The debate on the second reading of the Property Tax Bill probably afforded the last opportunity for such a discussion; and that debate was a miserable, contemptible, humiliating failure. It shows that there is not a man in the House capable of criticising the financial policy of the Government, defective as it is, or willing to stand up on behalf of the people and speak their mind for them in their representative assembly. The Colonial Treasurer, sure of his majority, treated the question, as he treats all questions, merely as a party matter, and abstained from saying anything in moving the second reading of the Bill. He simply challenged the Opposition to come on and do their worst, as if the Opposition were the only persons interested in the question, and as if no one outside of the House had any right to know anything about it. His one idea was, not to justify the imposition of an increased burden upon the people, or to enlighten them upon their affairs, but solely to embarrass those whom he supposed were going to move an amendment upon his motion. That paltry object lie undoubtedly achieved ; for Mr Montgomery, having nothing before him to reply to or pick boles in, except the Financial Statement, which he had already attempted in vain to analyse on several occasions, found himself completely nonplussed. He made what we take to be the worst speech ever delivered on eo important a question, by one pretending to the position of a political leader. Instead of throwing into strong relief the reasons why, in the present state of the finances, the expenditure ought to be reduced instead of the taxation being increased, he wasted a flood of weak words on a perfectly useless effort to prove that a land tax and an income tax are preferable to a property tax. Skilfully handled, that proposition might, we dare say, be urged with a good deal of effect. But as Mr Montgomery handled it, he contrived to reduce it to an inane absurdity. He entirely failed to meet a single one of the numerous and very forcible objections to his proposal, which suggest themselves naturally to every candid mind. For example, he contended, not for a general land tax, but for a tax on uncultivated land. But he omitted to notice that a tax on uncultivated land would be the most uncertain of all imposts, because the landowner might escape it at any time by cultivating his land in any manner. Mr Montgomery might perhaps reply that the object of the tax is to compel the land-owners to cultivate the land ; but that is tantamount to saying that he does not intend the land tax to be a revenue tax ; whereas he distinctly recommends it as a better means of raising revenue than the property tax. But, regarding it simply as a class tax, an instrument of coercion against the owners of uncultivated land, nntl assuming that such a tax is compatible with the spirit of a free aud enlightened constitutional government, it will readily be seen that the tax would be most inequitable in its operation and would in many cases have quite tbe opposite effect to that intended. A very large proportion of the land in this country is un3uited for cultivation, and would literally be rendered worthless if it were cultivated. Not only would it not pay to break up this land, but it would be a wicked waste of valuable property. In its natural state it supports flocks and herds, and produces much wealth ; but if the surface were disturbed, it would not grow sown grasseß, much less grain, and the natural herbage would never reappear. We do not hesitate to say that by far the greater part of the purely pastoral country, — the country mainly aimed at by the advocates of the land tax — is of this character. The results of the tax, therefore, would bo either to mulct tbe landowners in a ruinous amount, or else to compel them to destroy their property and thus diminish tbe wealth and production of the country. It is quite true that some men own great tracts of uncultivated land, which is well suited for agriculture and which ought to be cultivated. But in those cases, if the assessors under the Property Tux Acts do their duty, the landholders are already taxed on this land to tbe full amount of its taxable value. Such cases, moreover, are few and far between, and it would certainly not be worth while to create a new system of taxation, and throw the finances and the politics of the country into confusion, in order to reach those few. It would be cheaper, as well as more rational, to buy out the owners of these large estates at a fair valuation, and Bell the land in sizeable blocks to that class of settlers wbo would make the best use of it. Then, as to the income tax, Mr Montgomery, while complaining of the burden of existing taxation, yet proposed to put on what would be to all intents and purposes a double tax. An income tax, to yield as much as the property tax yields, would need to be a very heavy one ; but, after all, anyone who should be unfortunate enough to have invested his capital and resources in land, would have to pay not only an income tax but a property tax as well. These are all points which anyone in Mr Montgomery's position is bound to notice and :o clear up. Yet Mr Montgomery

never referred to any of them. Iu t short, ho left it plainly to be seen that r he bus himself no faith in the cause that he professes to advocate, but t merely contends for it because it is the cause of bis party. If Mr Montgomery ; were in office to-morrow, he would never \ dream of bringing in Bills for estab- ' lishing an income tax and n tax on uncultivated land ; and if such taxes were ( to be imposed by any Ministry, Mr , Montgomery would probably be one of , many successful colonists, who would i come to the conclusion that New Zea- ' land was a fine country — to live out of. ' If Mr Montgomery made a mess of his attempt to discuss finance, Mr Dargaville did even worse. Hia speech . was a most discreditable one, a coarse, ' untruthful and perfectly useless display of violence. He betrayed a most un- ; accountable iguorauce of the very rudi- . ruents of his subject ; as for instance, when he railed against the property tax because it allows absentee mortgagees ' to go free ; whereas he ought to have known that by the Act of 1881 absentee mortgagees are expressly made liable to the tax. His abuse of the Ministers in connection with the Bank of New Zealand, too, though there was a slender substratum of justice in some of his remarks, was on the whole, most unwarrantable. But, what is more to the point, he sat down without having thrown a particle of light on the financial question, or said one word that could serve any useful purpose whatever. Mr TurnbuH'B rising, we learn, had the immediate effect of emptying the House and bringing the debate to a precipitate close. Yet in the few sentences which he uttered, he put before tho House far better than either or both of the preceding speakers, the question which is really occupying the public mind. He went straight for the issue of whether or not any additional taxation of any sort is necessary ; and if he could havo got a hearing, he might havo done some service by speaking out boldly in that direction. The Colonial Treasurer, who followed Mr Turubull, since no other Member on either side would speak, was evidently very high in the stirrups. Ever since he found he had a safe majority for the session, he has quite dropped the deferential, conciliatory manner which ho assumed with so much effort before, and has been almost unbearably arrogrant. On Tuesday night be saw he had his opponents at his feet, and all he had to do"was to kick them. And kick them he did, to his heart's content. His speech in reply was one of the most insolent addresses, perhaps, ever heard in that House. It was as personal as Mr Dargaville's and as illogical as Mr Montgomery's. In fact, Major Atkinson entirely forgot the dignity of his position and his duty to the House and the country. His sole impulse was to wreak a vulgar vengeance on his puny assailants. His speech was not so much the utterance of a Minister expounding finance to a legislative ehnmWr, as an echo from a distant period in his career In tho Tarau.. ki colony, Whero the word of command onco used to bo. Not " Forward !" but " Geo-Whonp, Strawberry .'" We observe that on the meeting of the House on Wednesday, the proceedings were interrupted by a personal altercation between the Colonial Treasurer and Mr Dargaville, in which the former was clearly the aggressor. The Colonial Treasurer having begun the quarrel, and got tho rough side of Mr Dargaville's tongue — and it is as rough on both sides as the back of Esau's hand — complained to the Speaker that Mr Dargaville had vised " insulting language" to him. Mr Dargaville excused himself on the ground that Major Atkinson had first used insulting language to him ; but on the Speaker asking whether he wished to make a formal complaint, he replied, with a fine sarcasm, that it was not worth taking notice of. It was a fitting sequel to the debate of the previous night !