The Evening Star FRIDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 4009, 31 December 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1875.

Mr Donald Reid had it all to himself at the Taieri. Nobody thought it worth his while to oppose him, so ho appeared on the hustings, made his speech, was declared elected, thanked his constituents, put on his hat, and retired. This is a comfortable way of becoming a representative; and, when he reached the family circle, he might, with more truth than Gesar, utter the bumptious boast, Veni, vidi, vici.” Mr Reid did not, however, leave the hustings without doing a little of the “ bumptious,” albeit it was marked by more than usual caution. He took credit to himself for having noted the ca eer of the sixteen factious Oppositionists who kept watch and ward lest the Government ogres should steal a march on the country, and at one gulp swallow up the revenues of the Colony for—its benefit—for no one has yet had the audacity to say it would have been solely for their own, It is amazing how a walk-over softens the temper. Mr Reid is never so brilliant as when he is roused by an opponent. The charity that “ thinketh no evil” sounds more strange from his lips than those racy sarcasms with which he scourges political sinners. The only hard words he allowed himself to use were in condemnation of a Parliament doing exactly that for which it was elected. He compared the majority to despots—a rather far-fetched and not very pertinent simile, but it seemed to go down with his bucolic listeners, and to be looked upon by them as a wondrous depth of political philosophy. On one point we have a crow to pluck with Mr Reid. It is not, perhaps, a very serious matter, but it is one tlaat has become very fashionable during this election. For the information of our readers and the Colony, wo have endeavoured to place a distinguishing mark to the name of every elected member, so that a fair estimate may be formed of the tendency of the next Parliament. Those only can with certainty be thus distinguished who have definitely declared themselves ; but where shall we place Mr Reid ] Is he an Abolitionist or a Provincialist 1 In view of the utterances of almost every candidate who has presented himself in what are termed “ Opposition ” interests we feel inclined to adopt new lettering, and instead of attaching “P ” to their names to add a “ T.” In the style of phraseology common with children learning their alphabet, if asked what “T” stands for we should reply “T stands for Trimmer” What other nomenclature can be applicable to the tactics of one who says— Of course he would have to vote against Abolition, in order to ascertain whether there was a majority iu favor of it. but if there should be he frankly told them he would offer no factious opposition. Just on a par with this reputationsaving predetermination is Mr Green’s political programme, ns expressed at Port Chalmers. He stated that be was not an out-and-out Provincialist, and had been of opinion for some time pa at that a change of the pro aml form of government mast ensue.

We could quote similar passages from most of the candidates who have been elected on presumably Opposition principles. It is reasonable, and even charitable, to suppose many things that have been uttered wore the suggestions n • of ignorance, but these are evidences of design and forethought. They mean “ I want yon (my constituents) now’' t< imagine I intend one tiling, when 1 know well I shall be compelled to do another, 1 am really not deceiving

you, I am only allowing you to deceive yeuraelves.” While men like Mr Reynolds, out-apoken and straightforward, are rejected, those are returned who know well they are agi’eed only on one point—immediate opposition, ultimate concession. But there are certain other matters that deserve consideration, on which there will be wide differences of opinion. Our incomprehensible contemporary, the * Daily Times,' has at last found out there will be a difficulty in the Oppositionists of Otago coalescing with those of Auckland, because of their fundamental difference of opinion on the land question. That is nothing new to the readers of other journals, although it may take the disciplts of the ‘Daily Times ’ by surprise. We regard the Abolition question so practically settled as to place it second in prominence to the ideas that Mr Reid volunteered on taxation.

With reference to the incidence of taxation, ue cud not think there was much to complain of in that respect at present. He hoped there would be no cause for increased taxation, ihere was a very prevalent opinion that a land ®*Joht to be imposed. If it were shown that the railway sysem necessitated increased taxation, and_ the railways did not pay the interest on their cost, and assistance had to be mven to meet the working expenses in some quarters, it would be fair to imp se a reasonable tax over the properties that would be affected by those works. An Income tax would be far more equitable than a tax on land, for a man might have thousands of acres on which hj« made a loss, Land should only be made a basis of taxation for the purpose of raising necessary revenue, and not for the purpose of oppre-sing those who purchased land. There was one case, and one only, in which a land tax would be justifiable, not altogether as a means of raising revenue, and that was where good land, well adapted for agriculture, was held in large blocks without any attempt being made to improve it. It wou'd be reasonable to impose a tax on such land, which would be equivalent to the sum which, had it been under cultivation, those who tilled it would have contributed. Although Mr Reid saves himself by certain qualifications from being pinned to a definite course, should the unlikely contingency of increased taxation arise, his views are unmistakeable. Property, the value of which throughout the country has been doubled or trebled through the railway system, is to escape untouched or to be assessed in patches ; but income—that is a man’s personal exertion—is to be taxed. What would Mr Stout say to this 1 Sir George Grey sought to curry favor with the people, or, to speak more correctly, to embarrass the Government; by proposals to remove certain taxes which he affirmed bore unfairly upon personal effort—labor. Mr Donald Reid thinks “ there is nothing to complain of in the incidence of taxation.” Again crops up “Auckland v. Otago.” We put it to all unprejudiced men, would not “T” better signify Opposition tactics than “ P ?”