Rangitikei Election

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 150, 16 June 1892, Page 2

Rangitikei Election

MR. STEVENS AT THE ASSEMBLY ROOMS. V Last night Mr John Stevens, one of tho candidates for the Rangitikei seat, addressed a large audience in the Assembly Booms. Mr Haybittle, the Mayor, occupied the chair, and in a few appropriate words claimed for Mr Steyens a fair and impartial hearing. In his introductory remarks Mr Stevens paid a high tribute to the memory of the late member, Mr D. H. Macarthur, whose demise was a loss not only to the electorate but to the whole of the colony. Mr Stevens said he had not been invited to stand by requisitions, but several deputations representing important and mfluental flections of the community had waited upon him and invited him to do so. He reminded the meeting that a great many of the electors would have preferred Mr Arkwright as their candidate but that gentleman had wired out from England stating his inability to contest the seat. He had little feeling in matter, and if after the expiration of tho present Parliament, if he were elected-— he would leave it to the electors to decide whether he or Mr Arkwright should be chosen as the candidate of his friends. He did not appear before them on personal grounds but to represent the Liberal interest. Now it was not a question of men in this election but of measures, and one of the principal measures of the present Government was the Land and Income Tax, which he held would be a great boon to the farming community, One farmer with whom he had been speaking on the subject, had declared that he was in opposition to the present Government on the ground that it had imposed an enormous tax on the farmers. He (speaker) showed the farmer that he would pay less under the Land and Income Tax than under the Property Tax. The farmer then said that he did not wish to be relieved of what would be a just payment to the State; Very well, he had then said, if you wish to pay what is fair, write me your cheque for the amount you will be relieved by the new taxation, and I will hand it over to some charitable institution and your name will be handed down to posterity as a benevolent person. But the farmer's generosity did not rise to this height. He would now quote them a few figures to prove the benefit the new taxation proposals of the present Government would have upon the farming class, but he would not take cases such as had been quoted by members of the Opposition and the Conservative press of how the tax would effect men owning .£IOO,OOO worth of property. Such cases were not sufficiently numerous to affect the question. The speaker here quoted a case already published, showing by comparison how a farm of 250 acres would be taxed under the two systems ; also in the case of a 500-acre farm. 500 acres was a fairly large farm, the owner of which might be said to be a fairly well-to-do farmer. Supposing, then, a farm of 500 acres at £10 an acre was worth £5000, 1000 sheep at 10s £'500, 50 cattle at £2 10s .6125, 5 horses at £10 £'50, farming implements £125, and household effects £150, total .£5950. On this amount there would be an exemption of £300, leaving the owner's taxable value to be £5450 on which under the old Property Tax he would have to pay £22 14s 2d. Now the same property under the new taxation would have an exemption of £4 per acre on the unimproved value of the laud equal to £2,000, £950 on the stock and effects, and £500 on the unimproved yalue, leaying £2,500 which, at one penny in the pound under the Land Tax, would be £10 8s 4d, showing a saving to the farmer of £12 5s 2d, uadsr the new system (applause). The effect of the new, taxation would clearly have the result of enabling the farmer to become a larger producer of wealth. The Land and Income Tax would require some amendments, but in principle it could not be improved upon. The extravagant attacks made on the Government by the present opposition by terming them sham Liberals and Anarchists, was hardly worthy of reply. It was about as reasonable as the statement of the Irishman, who said on landing in America, " Xs there a Government in this Country," and on being told that there was, said, " Then I'm agin it." In regard to land tenure he recognised the fact that there were different classes of land open for settlement. In the case of bush land, on which a settler had expended much labour and brought his homestead from a wilderness to a smiling garden, certainly the right to acquire the freehold should be extended to him. But there were benevolent institutions in this country which the State had undertaken to support. He knew of no better means to obtain the necessary revenue than by the lease of small runs in perpetuity, laid off on land not suitable for small farms. His opinions had not altered with respect to the necessity of granting the right to acquire freehold since the year 1882, when ifc was chiefly through his instrumentality that the purchasing clause had been inserted in Mr Bolleston's Land Bill, in which it had been intended by that gentleman only to give a perpetual lease tenure. This perpetual leasing policy, of which the Opposition were now so loudly complaining, had not been introduced by the present Government, but by the present leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolleston. The speaker here quoted extracts from Hansard, both from his own and Mr Bolleston's speech to prove his assertions, and said that the purchasing clause in the Bill referred to had ultimately been inserted by a personal friend of the speaker's in the Legislative Council, who had adopted his amendment. Between .Hunterville and Tongariro, along the route of the proposed railway there were large tracts of Native land which he considered the Government should at { once set about purchasing with the yiew ! of cutting it up into small farms for bona fide settlement. The speaker here made a personal explanation in regard to his I purchase of this native land at a contract price of two pence an acre. Much political capital had been made out of the transaction by those who opposed him and it was termed a political job but now he was glad to say the totara timber alone on the land had been estimated by competent judges to be worth a million of money and as regards the quality of the land the fact that it was being selected by small farm as- | sociations was a sufficient guarantee of its suitability for settlement. Yet this was the very land Mr Bryce had declared not to be worth five pence an acre. The speaker referred to the adoption of the dual vote by the Political Association and contended that the practical effect of such a proposal would be to disfranchise men not possessed of property. In concluding Mr Stevens stated that if elected he would give the present Government a general support and expressed his willingness to reply to any questions. Mr F. Y. Lethbridge asked whether the candidate was in favor of the present system of education, or of the denominational system. Mr Stevens replied that be was distinctly opposed to any interference with the present system of education. Mr Sicely asked the speaker to give a definition of the difference between the dual vote and the plural vote in Borough elections. Mr Stevens replied that it was proposed to use the dual vote for the election of members to make laws, while the plural vote was for the election of members to administer laws already made for them. In reply to Mr Sicely the candidate said that the Land Act of 1882 gave the Governor in Gounoil power to make

regolstions for/the disposal of land under ' the small farm regulations. . ' > In reply to Mr Lethbndpe, Mr Steveriß said that Sir Benjamin Franklin, whom he had referred to in his speech, was an American with an English title, also that if the female portion of the community showed a desire for the franchise he was in favour of giying it to them bj degrees. In reply to Mr Sicely Mr Stevens said that it was true he had been opposed to Female Franchise but in politics it wa9 necessary to advance with the times. He hoped to be able to give the present Government a consistent support. Dr Johnstou asked the candidate whether he had not previously expressed himself as boing in favour, of the Atkinson Government. Mr Stevens replied that there was neither an Atkinson Government or a Ballance Government in power at the time he previously contested the seat, nor had he ever given the Atkinson Govern-' mout a promise of support. Dr Johnston was theu understood to say that he looked upon a promise of support to the party to which Major Atkinson belonged as an equivalonfc to a pledge to the Atkinson Government, but he was interrupted by Mr P. Thompson rising to a point of order. Mr Sandilands inquired whether it was true the candidate had placed bis name to a paper with the object of assisting Mr Halley to obtain a license to make use of his residence as a working men's clubj which would also include a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Mr Stevens replied that he had signed a paper favourable to the character of Mr Halley. Mr Bullock said he had heard it was the intention of Mr Ballance to place the survey fees on the price of land disposed of to small farm associations ; also, to introduce an Enabling Bill on behalf of the Wanganui Harbor Board, giving them power to retain all the purchase money in respect to the land they were about to dispose of to a small farm association, whereas, according to regulations for the disposal of land by deferred payment now in force, one-third of the purchase money was returnable to the local body for road construction. He asked what were Mr Stevens' views on these matters, also as to whether the candidate was in favour of increasing the honorarium. Mr Stevens replied that he did not think the;; Government should make any separate charge for the . survey fees in land sales, that he would like to see Mr Ballance's enabling bill before replying as to whether he would approve of it, and that as each members of the House now represented 10,000 electors instead of an average of 7,000 as heretofore, and consequently was put to greater expense when visiting his constituency he was in favour of a proportionate increase in the honorarium. In reply to Mr Blakely the candidate said he was not in favour of granting a license for the sale of intbxicaut drinks in the King Country. Mr T. Chamberlain moved that a hearty vote of thanks be given to Mr Stevens for his address and also a vote of confidence in the present Government. Mr G. T. H. Lyne seconded the motion. On a show of hauds be called for the motion, only a few hands were held up, and a larger number against it, but on the motion being again submitted to the: vote, on the voices, the cnorusss of ayes and noes were about equal, and the meeting broke up without the chairman giting his decision.