NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 959, 28 October 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Oue evening contemporary has some very singular arguments in defence of the further increase of the heavy burden of taxation. New Zealand is already more heavily, taxed than almost any other country in the world, and the burden keeps on growing. The newspaper referred to asks, "How is New Zealand's Dreadnought to be paid for? and how is the permanent cost of her improved defence system to be paid for?" There are only two alternatives, it says: Either we must borrow the money-or else "increase the burdens of the present generation by increasing the payments from revenue so as to provide a sinking fund, and this can only be done by increased taxation." Our contemporary's memory has served it very ill here, for it has in its past attacks upon the gross extravagance of the Government said quite enough . to point the way to a third way, and the only proper way, of raising the cost of our new defence proposals. We pointed out many months ago that, enlarged to English scale, the mere increase in the cost of government during the Ward regime would buy fifty Dreadnoughts per annum. The following little table is worth quoting again, the year 1905-6 being Mr. Seddon's last year: 1905-6 1909-10 Increase. £<'•£. £ Revenue 8,111,134 0,423,238 1,012,101 Departmental expenditure 1,252,233 5,170,513 1,221,280 The increase in the cost of the Departments, that is to say, has more than swallowed up the increase of revenue. This monstrous, fact is the strongest possible proof that decent government, oven a mild essay in real economy, would not only pay for our defence schemes but would enable the already enormous rate of taxation Lo be reduced. To B^cnk

[of fresh taxation as the only alternative to further borrowing is to assert that the policy of gross waste must be preserved at all costs. It is not surprising that the advocate of this doctrine should see that the new taxation, being direct, is "particularly salutary." It would certainly be salutary if it were general, but of what value as a public educator is a scheme of direct taxation that leaves the great bulk of the public untouched? Moreover ■it is just as well to bear in mind that special taxation for defence purposes was imposed last session in excess of the amount of the new expenditure involved under the defence scheme.

It is a little curious that no mention was made in the Legislative I Council yesterday of admitting the ' press to the inquiry into the allegation made by Me. Hine against the Hon. T. K. Macdonald. This, presumably, was an oversight. The inquiry by the - Select Committee of the Lower House is to be open to the press and very properly so'. The Committees in both cases are distinctly Government Committees: that is to say, they arc composed mainly of supporters of the Government, and the public would have very little confidence in the findings of secret tribunals of this nature where-they are sitting in judgment on allegations made by a political opponent. The safest check on party bias, conscious or unconscious, is full publicity. Another matter to be considered is the question of permitting the parties' to be represented by counsel. This question should never'have'been raised. It must be quite/obvious to • everyone that it wpulcl. be. folly .to expect persons quite inexperienced in proceedings' of'■ tHc nature involved, and having so much personally at stake, to conduct their own cases. It is customary , ; in such inquiries. ■to permit counsel to appear, and no doubt this course, will .be pursued. Now that two separate Committees have been set up it will be necessary for them to sit on different days in order to. enabTe Mr. HiNEto.be present. The chopping and changing that. has gone on since the charges were first made' has aroused.so much suspicion as , to the boua fides of the Government, in its professed.desire to grant Mr. Hine a/full and impartial inquiry that Ministers will bo well; advised to see that no further obstacles are placeo , in .his path at to-day's , sitting of the. Committees.

1 The : discussion, in. the.,-,. House of Representatives upon the Commercial Trusts .Bill on.Tuesday last should make it clear to. everybody . that until Parliament takes the proper view of what constitutes a "monopoly," no effective law against Trusts can bo passed which will not be liable to injure legitimate business. If you are going to say that the test of monopoly.is profits, you are walking into a morass of difficulty and trouble. There- is such an abundant literature of : Trusts .and Cartels and. Monopolies that it is little.to the credit of our legislators that they have not discovered that, the point to,.which, "a;. Legislature , dealing with the subject should confine its attention is freedom of tra.de —that, and nothing else. Profit figures should be left to tb.G Courts as possible evidence in cases under any anti-Trust , Act. Parliament should not talk; through a statute; iOf;"reasonable" and "unreasonable'', profits 'and.'prices: withbut at', the same time "supplying a •clear .rule for the measurement of reasonableness. That a Bill for* the prevention of monopolistic , trading is desirable is beyond question, and we are glad to' notice that everybody seems to be sincerely anxious to help the Government. ;As the Prime Minister; says, it is.a measure that it will be* very difficult to give effect to, but the interpretation clause and.Clauses' 3, 4, and .5, which strike nakedly at exclusive trading,'are good and effective enough,, fpr, a beginning, at any rate. But'subsequent clauses, which make offence hinge upon "unreasonableness," will : g_o far towards. undoing such effectiveness" as inhere in the preliminary * sections. Clause 6 roads: . . ■ .; ; .

' Every person l .commits, an offence who, either as principal or agent, sells or supplies, or offers for sale or supply any goods at ~a price ..which is- unreasonably high, if that price has been in any manner directly or indirectly determined, controlled, or.'influenced by any commercial trust of which that person or his principal (if any) is or has been a member. What a burden of proof is here required,! .If .the clause were made to end at the word •'.'■" trust,"- and 'if also "any price" were substituted for "a price, which ;is' unreasonably high, "the Bill would be made far more effective, and a very bad violation of economic principles would be. avoided.,:•'■. .'. ; .' ' . -