The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1885.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 3456, 26 October 1885, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1885 .

Wb can fairly congratulate Mr Stout on having made at any rate a better defence of the Government than did Sir Julius Yogel. Whether this is equivalent to very high praise is, however, a matter of opinion. At any rate he is honestly deserving of credit for having avoided the crabbed and narrowminded tone which characterised his colleague's utterances and which showed unmistakeably tbe mortification at any rate of Sir Julius Yogel himself at such brave promises as those made by the Government having been followed by so little m the way of, performance. Mr Stout made a gallant' and ingenious attempt to show that the Government had done something to redeem their pledges, but tbe ingenuity was very much like that of the experienced cook m English boarding-schools, who makes sneb a very small modicum of butter cover such a mighty expanse of bread. Boarding school bread-and-butter, even with tbe most skilful manipulation, however, is never a very palatable food, and we are afraid the public will hardly be prepared to accept that provided by Mr Stout as a satisfactory substitute for the unlimited cakes and nle which they had been promised. One of the most extraordinary features about the Premier is the singular weakness which he, a man of so much ability m many respects, exhibits m regard to figures. Most people will remember the extraordinary mental confusion into which he fell m attempting to expose, as he thought, the fallacies of the property tax, the only result being that he exposed his own deficiencies. Scarcely less remarkable is his jumbled-up state of mind m regard to taxation, as exemplified m his defence of the budget proposals of the Government. It would be indeed a gloomy look-out for New Zealand if Mr Stout's deductions rested on a sound basis. According to his theory there is nothing before us but constantly increasing taxation, because every million borrowed means £40,000 to be paid annually by way of interest, every child born and attaining school age means another £4 per annum added to the cost of education, the growth of settlement means fresh burdens on the taxpayer for telegraphs, post offices, etc., and the success of new industries also means an extra burden on the struggling taxpayer. All these propositions, be it remarked, are brought forward as arguments showing the necessity of increasing the rate of taxation on the individual, and not merely of increasing the gross revenue of the country. If the borrowed money is not becoming reproductive and giving at any rate a fair prospect of returning its own interest, clearly we had better stop borrowing. Hitherto we have been taueht that tbe ideal colonist was the frugal, industrious man with a large family, and that m increasing our population by attracting fresh settlers to out shore, we were dividing the general load of taxation and so lightening our individual burdens. Mr Stout, however. Bees m children only an extra demand of £4 per head annually from the coffers of the State, and m the growth of settlement only increased inroads on tbe public chest without any contribution to the general wealth. Clearly if the new settlers don't pay for the cost of the telegraphs and post-offices they require, we had better cloße our ports to them, and if the Premier's view m regard to the rising generation is correct, the Malthußian doctrine is tbe only true political economy, Again, if the effect of new industries being established is merely to afford an excuse for the levying of new imposts, it is difficult to understand bow we are to be saved " by the development of onr industrial resources," as the Government are always preaching. Fortunately, as it happens, Mr Stout's logic is no more sound m these respects than it was m regard to the property-tax, and we need trouble ourselves very little on the subject were it not that all these specious fallacies are merely so many excuses for further heavy taxation which the Government are meditating next session. If, however, they want excuses for their extravagance, to which the public may really be expected to attach some weigbt, they will bave to find something more substantial than the sophistries which Mr Stout put forth at Dunedin on Friday night. There is one statement m the financial part of the Premier's speech which certainly is calculated to deceive at first sight. We refer to the allegation that the amount per head which the people are called upon to pay through the Customs is lighter now than it was m 1870. Then, he says, it was £2 13s 7d per bead, while now it is £2 6s 6d. The unfortunate taxpayer, who feels where the shoe pinches, knows, of course, that bis burdens are much heavier now than they were m 1870, although he may not at tbe first glaace detect the fallacy, ia the Premier's figures. He feels, too, that it would be strange indeed if successive changes m the tariff, involving heavy increases m the duty on all the necessaries of life Tmd not prejudicially affected his pocket. The fact is that m 1870 he knew what he paid, and practically it all went into the public Treasury to defray the public expenses. Now ha does not know what he pays, and the bulk of the money goes into the pockets of manufacturers and monopolists. Supposing, for instance, that the tax on coal bad been retained last session. Immediately it was proposed the price not only of imported but of native coal was raised to the consumer. He had to pay not merely the duty which went into the Treasury, but also the increased price to the local producer, which went into the pockets of tho latter. Tear by year, as the protective tax operated as it was intended to do by keeping out the imported coal, fha Customs receipts would have become less and less, but the consumer would have had to go on paying the increased price for New Zealand coal. More than this, Government would have got into tbe habit of reckoning on the coal-tax for revenue, and when it fell off would have, hud to devise other taxation to take its place. This is the beneficent manner m which a protective tariff works. And this is what Mr Stout mentis when he says tbatrqa tho industries of the colonies increase the imports decrease, and bo it becomes necessury to impoae fresh burdens on the people. Ac to his statement that the Government only " proposed to increase tbe taxation I

by distributing the taxation equally all roopd," that is either simple nonsense or it is something much worse. What they did \iblb to increase the property tax — that moat "iniquitous impost " — while they proposed ajeo- to raise the duties on the tea, the non-abstainers' spirits, and almost every necessity of civilised life as much m some cases as 50 or 100 per cent. To talk, therefore, as if they only proposed to readjust the incidence of taxation without increasing its amount is m the highest degree disingenuous. The Premier, we observe, is especially bitter m bis complaints about the " discourtesy " of Parliament m refusing to allow the West Coast Railway to go to a Select Committee. It was purely the fault of- the Government that the House felt itself compelled to take such a firm stand on this matter. Not to mince matters, the Ministry showed that where the West Coast Railway was concerned they were not to be trusted. The Colonial Treasurer, submitted the Meiggs contract to the House, not as a Minister m his position ought to have doDe —calmly and impartially with the view of ascertaining whether it was a desirable bargain for the country —but much as the paid counsel of the promoters mighf have been expected to submit it, speaking at the bar of the House. More than this, he deliberately kept back from the knowledge of Parliament information of vital moment, the knowledge of which he mast have known would instantly have procured the rejection of the contract, if nothing else had done so. It was evident that the whole wits of the Government were at work to jookey this proposal through Parliament by hook or by crook, and members felt that the only safe way was to strangle the project at the birth. That they adopted this course is no doubt annoying to the Government, but we are convinced it was to the immense advantage of the country. ■ I