Wellington Independent MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3229, 19 June 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1871.

The opposition party in the Provincial Council", from the shifty nature of their objections tv the- valuation rate, remind us of the thimble-riggers that used to frequent home fairs and racecourses. You saw the pea put plainly under a thimble, which you determined to watch intently, but a sudden mazy motion of the adept so bewildered you that you could only wildly guess, and, of course, wrongly. This motion was accompanied by more or less cabalistic jargon, according to the fluency of the manipulator. In the same way in the Provincial Council the arguments against the valuation rate are sometimes to be found under thimble number one — taxing the poor man ; thimble number two — taxing improvements; or, thimble number three — taxing those heaviest who ought to be lightest. The three are shifted about more or less deftly, and with more or less unintelligible explanation according to the mental calibre of each honorable member. The moment you think you have got them fixed to one objection, when you are ready in triumph to lift the thimble, as it were, a hasty mazy permutation takes place, and the pea is gone ! It is not at all improbable that we do lion, members injustice in gathering their opinions from our printed reports, as the acoustic properties of the Hall are far from being satisfactory, and hon members on the opposition side (with the exception of Mr Ludlam) speak far too low to be easily heard. But if we are to judge of them by the printed reports, we must say that we never knew of objections of so shifty a nature set forth in speeches so lamentably inconclusive. We hear almost in the same breath of this valuation rate being " a great injustice to the industrious settler," and yet being perfectly " fair in principle." We are told that it lets the large landowner escape too easily, that it is a tax upon industry, that it presses most heavily upon the jpoor settler who (presto ! change !) has spent " thousands of money upon his laud." One hon member draws a pleasing picture of the progress of the road boards in the Wairarapa, showing how harmoniously in that " happy valley " "they had fulfilled their functions, and if the settlers were only moderately fortunate in procuring wardens, they rarely or never had anything to complain of." After hearing so much of " the existence of such a satisfactory state in the Wairavapa," we infer that no bill at all is necessary, when, suddenly (presto! change !), we are informed that " many settlers of the out districts of the Wairarapa had already suffered great injustice by the Government in the matter of roads ;" and of course we are shut up to the opposite conclusion that some remedial measure is peremptorily required. With many, the desire seems to be, that the tax should so fall as to mitigate the inequalities of wealth — the rich being made to pay more, both absolutely and proportionally, than the poor. Anxious to avoid a tax upon industry, they advocate a direct tax on industry and economy, and would punish those, who by working harder and saving more than (heir neighbors, had acquired a larger landed estate' ! It were eudless to point out all the inconsistencies and absurdities into which they fall. Suffice it to say, that their mutual contradic tions establish the soundness of the principle they condemn. The whole debate is a striking example of what Mill calls " the want of conscience in matters of taxation." Settlers whose lands have been improved by roads subsidised by double equivalents from Government— that is to say from all parts of the province, no r? talk of injustice, when they are called upon to contribute to like improvements to their less fortunate neighbors, whose inaccessibility, as Mr Renall pointed out, while it did not exempt them from past taxation, deprived them of the advantages it was intended to confer. It is perpetrating, on a large scale, the injustice jthat has too often characterised the proceedings of petty road boards. A road district consisting of parts A., 8., C, and D., with full power to levy its own rates, too frequently ac(s thus : the settlers in A. B. and C, outnumbering, frequently only by plural voting, those living in D., pack the Board, and levy a high rate for three years expended successively in A. B. and 0. The simple settlers in D .think

their time must come next year; but, alas ! next year there is no Government subsidy, and to their horror and astonishment, the Board deem it " injustice" any longer to levy the same high rate. In vain they remonstrate : A. B. and C, strong in. their plural voting, overpower them at every election, and choose from among themselves the Board 'that levies the rate. We do not say that this ever happened in that Arcadia where there " *.vas rarely or never anything to complain of;" but that it 7m* happened in many road boards, we have abundant testimony to prove. The Council, if they were to adopt the views of the opposition, would perpetrate tie same hind of injustice on a larger scale. The principle of a uniform acreage rate is, in a province like Wellington, manifestly unjust. On the Canterbury plains, where land is all of the same quality, and has all been sold at the same price, the principle might be less open to objection ; but in Wellington, land is to be found of every possible I quality, from arid sand to rich alluvial soil. It has been alienated from the Crown at very different prices, and its value depends greatly on its situation with regard to mountains, rivers, harbors, &c. The Council have before them a petition, praying for the return of a deposit of fifty pounds, on the ground that the land is not (as was represented) pastoral land, but " nothing but sand." Would it not be grossly unjust to tax this " sand" on the West Coast at the same rate per acre as (say) Mr Ludlam's " land" at the Hutt. It may surprise the Opposition, when we tell them that a uniform acreage rate does not obtain — even in that province where it could be most fairly applied ; we mean the province of Canterbury. The bill now be fore the Council closely resembles, in this and other important features, the Canterbury road ordinance. In no province of New Zealand has there been so much road making as in Otago, and there, as well as in Canterbury, " improvements" are taxed. For the improvement of property by roads, no other tax seems so natural or so just, as a property tax levied pro rata on its value. If, by some subtle arrangement, the Opposition could contrive that the benefit of a road would never extend to any description of property but land ; then we would seriously discuss the question, how and in what proportions land, and land only, is to be assessed for its construction and maintenance. The trite saying that the value of a thing is never truly known till the want of it is felt, may be put in requisition. Suppose that all existing roads, like the figures on a school boy's slate, were very suddenly rubbed out, which would feel the want most, — the owners of hilly, remote or inaccessiblo land or those of fertile and arable plains ? Nay, would not the proprietors of houses, flax mills, saw mills, manufactories, shops, &c, whom, the Opposition would exempt from all road taxation, not " feel the want," and consequently admit the value, most of all ? Whether, therefore, we adopt the principle of " value received" or " ability to contribute," we shall, by assessment on actual value, most nearly approximate to absolute justice. This standard, like all other standards of perfection, may not be attainable, but that is no reason why we should deliberately turn our back on it. If they are correctly reported, some do not contend for the rate being strictly uniform, but would allow for remoteness and inaccessibility. This is, however, to surrender the whole point in dispute. In assessing the value of any land, its remoteness and inaccessibility will form an important element which no assessor could ignore. Why, then, give only partial application to a sound and equitable principle ? Why oppose a measure which will as certainly do justice in all cases, as a board by following its principle of rating will confessedly do in some ?