FRIDAY, JANUARY 25.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 159, 25 January 1878, Page 2

FRIDAY, JANUARY 25.

Mr. Montgomery's speech, as was to have been expected, has undergone a searching examination at the hands of both friends and foes ; the scalpel of criticism has probed into its smallest sentence, and after all the research is over, after every phase <of examination is conclnded, all that can be urged against it is, that there was nothing new in it, and that the speech was tedious and prolix. As to the first charge, if so it may be termed, we must give it a decided contradiction. Mr Montgomery's remarks on the levying of a property tax, and the franchise, contained the elements of a course of action that were, as far at least as other public speakers in the colony are concerned, entirely new and original. That his views with regard to taxation are likely soon to be put to the test, is shown by a telegram of recent date, in which the intended line of action to be taken by the Government next session is set forth, and which bears out in every particular the course foreshadowed by Mr Montgomery. The necessity alleged for a property tax, at all times a somewhat unpopular one, is the yearly deficit (the unprovided for interest on public loans), and the ever increasing indebtedness of the colony. Mr Montgomery says it has been this deficit which has been the primary cause of the present financial difficulties. The old, bat rotten principal of " robbing Peter to pay Paul " was resorted to by Major Atkinson, whose encroachments on the Canterbury Land Fund, Customs revenue, the issuing of Treasury bills, &c, were all for the purpose, of making up the deficit, but in vain. Sir George Grey also takes the land fund for a like purpose ; but, as Mr Montgomery says, this cannot meet it. Therefore, as the puplic creditor must be satisfied, the straightforward, honest course is advocated, namely, that of a property tax. This tax is not to be only a land tax, but one also on " Bank, insurance, and other shares, money lent on mortgage and embarked in trade." That such a tax will be unpalatable, and meet with strenuous opposition, there can be little doubt, but Mr Montgomery is a good financier, and he knows the danger resulting from continual borrowing, and a yearly increasing national debt. He wishes to bring the public to a sense of this danger, and merely asks them to meet the difficulty face to face, and like men. His proposals as to taxation are just and equitable. The man with only £500 a year would not bo taxed, because it is considered that he already pays into the colonial revenue as much as can reasonably be expected of him ; but the tax would take effect on any annual sum exceeding this. Mr Montgomery showed by statistics that every person in the colony pays a per capita tax of £3 Os Id to the. Customs revenue, and he argues fairly enough from this, why should the man with the small income pay as much as the rich man, whose property is being annually made more valuable by immigration and public works, toward the burden of which they pay an equal sum. He shows that the country legislates, in fact, for the good of property, and asks, why then should not property help to pay toward the cost of its own improvement. While advocating, however, the benefit that the colony would financially derive from a property tax, Mr Montgomery displayed again that clear insight lie possesses, and his desire to legislate for the good of the people, in his condemnation of the imposition of an income tax. He illustrates the injustice that would result from such a measure, by instancing the case of a man with a family, and a man who has none, both of them having equal incomes, the former, a real good colonist, is unable to save money, still he is taxed, and thus deprived of what is necessary to assist in the education of his children, the other, having no family to burden him, is able to save money, and so, really, his taxation amounts to nothing. Contrasting tho income with the property tax, Mr Montgomery incontestable proves the excellence of the latter as applied to the circumstances of this Colony, and, as lie shews in the case of men with thousands of acres of unused land, its power to reach where the former could have no effect. We feel sure that Mr Montgomery's determination to support a property tax at the next session of Parliament has met with universal favour among his constituents here. If we must have a tax, and it is evident that the financial state of the country demands it, then of two evils, we agree with Mr Montgomery in choosing the laest.