The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 1884.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3905, 25 January 1884, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 1884.

The Rating Act, 1882, is so manifestly Tinfair in its provisions relating to the assessment of Crown property that it is surprising it was allowed to pass through a Legislature elected by manhood suffrage. Tho tendency of such n. Parliament, it might well be thought, would have been in a democratic direction, and that its members would have observed a strict watch lest the Crown should iisurp an authority not previously possessed. The character of tho legislation, however, of the session of 1882 showed that a Parliament elected by the numbers rather than by the intelligence of the peoplo can bo the least mindful of popular rights. In tho very short debate that took place on the Rating Act Mr Seddon was the only member who pointed out that the Government appeared anxious to place Crown property on a different footing to that owned ptivately. His observations called forth no rejoinder, nor did they awaken in his colleagues that spirit of liberty that had fallen asleep when its flag had served its turn on the hustings. But the Bill received as little attention in the one House as in the other. Introduced at the fag , end of the session, when members had wearied themselves with paltry wranglings, no time was given to its proper consideration. The main object of the measure was to equalise valuations for purposes of taxation, and, relieving local bodies of the duty of valuing, to make the property tax valuation the basis for that of local rating. The principle was no doubt a good one, and had it been carried out honestly there would have been no reason to complain. But when in practice it is found that property tax valuations aro full of errors, and always on the right side for tho Government, and that the Government valuations of Crown property for, local rating are shamelessly undervalued, the principle of the measure loses much of its beauty. And a reference to" the Act shows apparently, that it was specially designed to give an unfair advantage to the Crown. For instance, in section 11, sub-section 12, it is provided that Crown lands and native lands are' not to be assessed by the local valuer. If it bo fair and just for private property to be assessed by a local valuer, why should it not be so for lands owned by either the Crown or the natives? This section was evidently inserted under the idea that a local body might put a stifFcr valuation on Crown property than it would on that of private persons. This selfprotective clause brings to mind the.old adage, "act a thief to catrli a thief." Then, again, in tho Crown and Native Lands Rating Act, which gives power to levy a rato under the Rating Act, it ismost carefully.set forth that "the Property Tax Commissioner, when preparing the valuation rolls under the Rating Act, 1882, shall be the sole judge of whether any Crown land,s or native lands aro rateable property

by virtue of this xVct, and the entry by him on any valuation roll of any Grown lands or native hinds of which the Colonial Treasurer is therein specified as tho owner ns above mentioned shall, for all purposes whatsoever, be final and conclusive as against the local body," <fee. Tho Government, it will thus be seen, has taken very good care that it will not permit its valuation of its own property to be objected to in any way; objections and an Assessment Court are for common people who may feel aggrieved, but Crown property must bo placed above grievance. Acting under the powers conferred by these two Acts—the last of which, by-the-bye, exempts the most valuable Crown property in theborough ■ —the Government has valued its possessions in Napier. The assessment does the Property Tax Department infinite credit. We rather think that a comparison drawn between tho department's valuation of Crown pi-operty for local rating, and that of private property for property tax purposes, would furnish a grimpago for a comic journal. The Government property that is not exempted from rates is valued to sell at £13,650, or an annual valuation of £819, upon which the Corporation is to receive £102 7s 6d per annum, and, to save further bother, this valuation is fixed for three years commencing April Ist (a humorous date), 1883. We may mention that under local valuation the Criterion Hotel pays £70 a year. Tho Government, however, only makes itself pay £22 10s for the Post and Telegraph Offices, and a like sum for the Supreme Court House, and £0 for the Survey Oftico, the Government lawn, and the old Provincial buildinsrs. For tho Customs House and Post Office at the Spit tho valuation has been so fixed that the annual rates can only amount to £6 7s 6d. So that for all the Crown estate wo have enumerated above the Government pays less in borough rates than what the proprietor of tho Criterion Hotel lias to pay without a murmur for that single property. When we add that the valuation of tho old Provincial buildings, the lawn, and the Survey Office is put at a figure less than the actual contract prico for the erection of the last one building (quite new), some idea may bo gathered of the unjust manner in which tho Government deals with subordinate bodies. But for absolute meanness, not to use a much stronger term, commend us to the refusal of the Government to pay any rates whatever on the Spit police offices and lock-up on the ground that those buildings are not on Crown land, but have been erected by the Crown on a part of the Harbor Board's estate ! This is the wny that the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act, that wsis ostensibly passed to afford governing bodies a revenue in lieu of subsides, can be interpreted in order to defeat the actual object of tho measure.