A MATTER FOR INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2121, 13 April 1914, Page 6

A MATTER FOR INQUIRY.

An amusing instan-ce of the manner in which fee marc extreme of the Anti-Bcform journals are overreaching themselves just flow in their endeavour to bkfrksn the Oovcrnm<infc in the- eyes of the country was .cxposod last week by the Hawse's Bay Tribune. Last sos-' sion the member for Chalmers, Me. Clark, sought and obtained from the Governnjcrtt particulars of the purchase of the 'Blderslie No. 8 Estate, which was acauired by the State tinder the Laftds for Sisttlc&enb Act. The Napier TeUfiratA, anxious to hare a <Huk at the Massev Govera* iHent, sciicd on this return as the means to that end, and commented in the following tnrflas: When the pfllioy of compulsory purchase of estates for purposes of closer settlement was first introduced it <Ji'.l go«l service. . . . Time, however, has proved that the policy has it* weaknesses nnd ridscls. . , . If the U\v were altered I about vaiutitiott.s for fwrchasfj, ns, for [ eiainplc, constituting ■ the jwrch.as.in.fet price far any property ten j)irr cant, more ijinn (i rakuKen maie by the oifnoK ' iteinselv**?, ire .slioatd not have to re. cew! what has recenily taken pliico in cofijtectimi with aft estate known as EiibTslie 'Nsii. 2 . purchased lest yeii , . 'Hto ; area of tins tta* Wl iietm The vninatJen for tajaHon purposes u\iS , JCKkISO, of which JrU.iW w»» Hie afrjmproved rolnp.. . . . But the (rovwnment paid wes.wao'for this «state» or tit the reie of .£2fl ppr ftcic, the total jraid l*i'«? LsD pw pent, iitofo than the caiHtal v.ilne ;ifcor(lii!iß to the laoci-ta* valiiatiou, and 2( : K) psr cent, men? flinii the miiniprovcil v.ihip. To i«il" it shortly, til*- v(ilmitian lijioii ivljich ilii? proportion {stable was caliMiliitwl was ..t'S !«■»• nore, and the %v----(•rnoiPiit paid Jt'39 jspt- aero fer the latiif. thi? sellers ffoi'c very p!fa«f,i Tln> lasiliofi seems to lw that eltecr ilii? fJevfirnnient loads « l>i)i'oiin. or I list the sellers owght to have nnid a great slcai moi'e in land tax than they diet. No one, vvc should imagine, will lie inclined to disagree with the Telegraph irt tho. views it ■ cxpressps as above reco-rded. It is S, very shocking state of things ■■ when the State pays B'i'iMd tot w estate which it bw

jii,scif-!ysilue(i i al-: ! oii]y'V £i3,180r for j sUxutiun.-/; purposes. }.-?, Tlic'ursforlu- , iial<!is : [>nr|,; of tho. Jjiiai/x:sH from Lhc .point of'-'VJew.'.of the. Anti-Hirform : journal 1 is'fimt" tire .Mabsbv Govern-! .inctit.4 Jin<| -nothing whatever. ■ kr doj .witir Ht-liis ■ very ■ doubtful biisincsH transaction. '' 'i'ho estate was not purchased last year On the con--teary''it v.'as Acquired during 'the. financial year, 1911-1012—it was bought ant! paid for by the AVajuj: Government, Not- only that, but .the valuation for taxation purposes ■was. also made while the Wae£> Government was in office. In attempting to.saddle (ho Massey Government with the responsibility for this curious state of things the Napier Telegraph was cither deliberately dishonest or inexcusably ignorant. The paper in question isono of those which is constantly railing at the Government tinder the pretence that tho Itefonn Party is tho friend of the large landholders, and presumably its purpose in the present case was to suggest that some large landholder friendly to the Government had been favoured either in notbeing called on jo pay the full taxable valuo of his land or in being paid a higher price for the land than it was actually worth. Had it troubled to look up the official 'records—Appendix C 3, 1912— it would have seen that tho purchase was made by tho Ward Government from Me. J. B. Eetd, a gentleman who was appointed by tho Ward Goverament to the position of Director of the Bank of New Zealand, and who is generally credited with, being a staunch supporter of Sib Joseph Ward. Once more the Leader of the Opposition might well pray to be saved fi'om his friends. Since tho Tele graph has brought the matter before the public it- k just as well that it should be probed' a, little further. It is plain tnafc wulor Wardisra the valuation for taxation purposes was in this ease very different from tho valuation for the purpose of purchase. Presumably one or tho_other was wrong, and the responsibility for this should be sheeted home-. A difference of over _ 150 per cent, in the respective valuations of two Government Depart* ments in matters of this nature is certainly rather startling. 'It is another of those cases brought to light by accident in which tho adm'mfctratioa of the Wabb Government leaves so much to be explained.