The Star. FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1869.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 312, 14 May 1869, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1869.

-3j___ee ha 3 been considerable discuß- ':-:-_&&& -of late about the very important .•.-*is&geet of immigration. The discus-.-._Eoa 2ias been caused.no doubt, by a in the Superintendent's -is&xktina on opening the session (of the w ffir/jvsncial Council, but various things led up to the consideration of a <i«e'igecfc whioh,'in the ordinary course of ■*<seßMifcs, was sure to acquire prominence, id^is-our desire to see the subject dealt ■zmMik as its importance deserves, and <tws? think it hardly uecessary to ask earnest attention of the public n^rfe-ere all are so keenly interested. "<_>_ our morning contemporaries, the ~.£?&gss has been decidedly the most <3*2ia?ye in the discussion, and it will, *'£jc«: < kaps, be instructive if we endea-"■fjMjQ-vto find out what that journal ha 3 --.•KBieL In its Wednesday's issue tho - i^piiss treats of immigration solely as i_.iß2»ans of affecting the rate of wages. :/ W-s may extract ono sentence from Xoj& article by way of illustration : — -*£&« introduction of a large additional ''4ra^»|_y of labour would bring down wnge«, -\wssS tiie fall of wages would allow the capital •--TsSzkiH now lie 3 dormant to be profitably eni..•^kyad. '3£2_&fc is the sum and substance of the "'JEia&ss article published on Weduesday ihe Government are told that they ••staa-st " go in largely for immigration" ••ass ■& means of bringing down wages ViSty souie curious process the Press tries ".:** persuade those who have nothing '■hz& •■■their labour to depend upon that i£ !&ill be a firstrate thing for them if •'tike jn'ice is lowered. Whether such is r^2s?a case we leave those interested to _Vjexstge. . They are quite capable of <$&hig so. If A ha 3 au article to dis;g*#»ss of, aud if ti.'at article is the oniy -^stirag in the world he has to depend on - fS«r a living, he is perfectly able to say '• c w&-ethes.' or not it is a good thing for him "■ss? get, say £5, for it instead of £10. 'X'.SShq Press says it is the best possible -:^_sS-ig foe A to ge*-, £5. £a its Thursday's issue, the Press •.xetrams to the subject of immigration, -*__<_ the article is throughout an endea■*»7ssr to prove that, "cTtaiuigration will have lhe effect of reduc-ibßj--tiie pressure of taxation. "WSt-b. this view of the subject we 'Ssa?a no fault whatever to find. ■X'ißn. -the contrary, wo heartily agree •^witlx the Press in thinking that ■'•isrcey addition made to our population *-3e-&_.ces the taxation which those now V_«l €be colony are compelled to pay. It a_s evident that if £500,000 has to be . xsxi-rl by 200,000 people, the introduc-•*.-_3_-s> «f 100,000 more will reduce the

share which each of the 200,000 has to pay. But we cannot so unhesitatingly agree with the Press in saying that, Provided immigrants are introduced, it makes i no difference in what part of the colony they are settled. ' As taxpayers, it mates no manner of difference, of course. A man must contribute hia share of taxes wherever he may be settled. But every immigrant represents so much capital brought , in to the country — tbe Yankees have proved this to be the case very clearly — and it does .matter very much indeed where that capital is settled. Again, every immigrant has certain wants . which must be supplied, and it is a matter of no small importance, iv this respect, where he settles down. If Canterbury money is spent in bringing immigrants to the North Island, as it would be were Mr Fitzherbert's bill, i praised by the Press, to become law, Canterbury would lose the capital which ' the immigrants brought with them, and Canterbury tradesmen would lose the advantage to be derived from supplying the wants of the immigrants, while the province generally would lose the beuefits to be derived from the extension of settlement and the increase of production. These direct losses, in our opinion, would be poorly made up by the indirect and remote advantage represented by a small reduction in the burden of taxation. For these reasons, we cannot agree with the Press in thinking that it is pf no moment where the immigrants go. If cur money is to be spent in bringing them out, we desire to see them located here. Returning to the subject of immigration in its issue of this morning, the Pi'ess endeavours to shew, That immigration ought to be carried on by the General Government on behalf of the whole colony. The article of to-day is the fitting sequel to tbe article of yesterday, but it is more irrational and less guarded. Let us try to find out by what style of argument the Press arrives at the above conclusion. Our contemporary starts with the assertion that immigration, in the hands of tbe provinces, has come to a standstill. This is not quite true, but let that pass in the meantime. He then goes on to examine the condition of the provinces in detail, and the conclusion arrived at is this, That, with the exception of Canterbury, Otago, and Nelson, the ''provinces have no funds with which to carry on immigration. The Press article of this morning may be summed up as follows : — 1 . Immigration has come to a standstill in the hands of the provinces. 2. The provinces, except three,have no funds to carry on immigration. 3. All the provinces are in a position which renders it impossible for them to carry on immigration. •1. Therefore, we must hand over the business of immigration to the General Government. That, we think, is a fair analysis of the article. It will be seen tliat the second and third items in the above summary directly contradict each other. But it is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion after a careful analysis of our contemporary's article. And we may here ask how, after admitting that Canterbury has set aside for one year £12,000, and Otago £25,000, for immigration purposes, the Press can assert that in the hands of the provinces immigration has come to a (standstill. Both assertions cannot be true. But, if immigration is to be handed over to the General Government, as the Press desires, we should like to know what funds that body has at its disposal for this purpose. Has it a Bingle farthing? There cau be only one answer to this question — the General Oovernment has no money with which to carry on immigration . AVhat, then, is to be done ? How is the General Government to set about the work which the Press would hand over to it ? Raise a loan, snys our contemporary. Exactly, but on what security ? The general revenue of the colony ? Hardly, seeing that it is already pledged to its fullest extent, and that further taxation cannot be resorted to without driving people from the colony faster than they are now going. What security remains ? Tiie Land Fund, and that alone. There is nothing else to pawn. We have been at " our uncle's " so often, and to such effectual purpose in order to carry on a war for the benefit of the North, that we have nothing else left. But the Press has shewn very

■ ■■--... ■ ■ ■ i i conclusively that only three provinces — Canterbury, Otago, aud Nelson — have any land fund. That being the case, it follows that they must pledge their estate as security for an immigration loan, which loan is to be spent by the General Government for the benefit of those provinces that have nothing to offer. We don't see how it is possible for the Press to get out of this dilemma. Of course, our contemporary will say that it is no matter where the immigrants are settled. We have shewn that it is a matter of great importance. It is for the peoplo of this province to say whether they will allow their la.itd fund, the only remaining means they have of winning back prosperity, to be pawned for the benefit of the North Island. Already they have contributed £7 out of every £10 spent in the colonization of the North ; they are doing so now. Will they part with the only thing they have left for the same purpose ? In future articles we shall endeavour to shew how Canterbury can still carry on immigration on her own account, with advantage to every one in the province, and with advantage to the colony. The means is at hand ; it will be the fault of the people themselves if they do not insist on their being used.