The Globe. THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 968, 2 August 1877, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1877.

Thebe can be but one opinion regarding the makeshift character of the Colonial Treasurer’s proposals with reference to the Laud Lund, The reasons brought forward in support of the course which he wishes to take have obviouslj'- only just been thought of. They indicate no settled policy, unless it be that of expediency, and but for the fact that at the present moment Canterbury has £IOO,OOO of surplus revenue to receive, would never have been advanced. We had hoped that Ministers would have had the courage to face the question of increased taxation, as the obvious and honest way out of their financial difficulties. But Major Atkinson says he objects to deal with taxation in what he calls a fragmentary way. But, as far as we can see, there is no necessity for this. There need be no alteration in the present system. A property tax would, without diminishing our present sources of income, supply the sum so urgently wanted by the Colonial Treasurer to balance his accounts. Such a tax would fall upon the class who, to a great extent, escape their just share of the burdens of the country at the present time. Of course, every one in the colony has been a gainer more or less by the Immigration and Public Works policy. But the owners of property have reaped the greatest benefit. Since the inauguration of Sir Julius Vogel’s great scheme, has not landed estates increased ten fold in value in many places ? Previous to 1870 land was everywhere a drug in the market. It could neither be let nor sold, and stagnation and ruin were all but general. Since then all that has disappeared, Property has gone on rapidly advancing in value, and thousands who were but poor men are now rolling in wealth. Yet these men contribute scarcely anything more to the general taxation of the country than the labouring man. We ask is it fair and honest that such a state things should continue P Were there 110 P ress i n g necessity for it in consequence urgent requirements of the Colom a i Treasurer, we yet maintain that such a would just and equitable. The Govern’ proposal is in the highest degree ou' jectionable. A portion of the sum required is to be extracted from the Canterbury Land Pund, and the balance is to be raised by loan. This means fresh additions to the burdens of the present taxpayers, who are already paying more than their fair share of the taxation of the country. If Ministers have not the courage to face this question in a statesman-like manner, wo hope another set of men will be found who will undertake the task. But those most directly interested —the great mass of the population — must take means to make their wishes known. The people of Canterbury, as distinguished from the owners of property, must show that they are really in earnest in this matter, and by petition or otherwise, urge on their representatives at once to take up this question. The Lyttelton Times returns this morning to his favourite subject of the consequences of Abolition. After dwelling at some length upon the Government proposals with reference to the Canterbury Land Pund, our contemporary falls back upon his parrotlike cry about Abolition, and exclaims :—“ Such is the effect of Abolition which is now beginning to be felt. Its railway revenue appropriated, its Land Pund gradually being, under one pretext or another, encroached upon, and made liable for its neighbours’ debts, the ex-province of Canterbury has still a palladium, it will be said, in the principles of the Ministry, as announced by the Treasurer. But, unfortunately, the principles were stated with a reservation. The Treasurer affirmed the principle of localisation of the Land Punds in their own districts, as well as the principle of the expenditure of that fund on reproductive works. The reservations he made were —Ist, that Parliament has the right of altering the boundaries oi districts from time to time ; and, 2nd. that Ministers or Parliament have power to declare, when they think proper, that a district is sufficient!} peopled and provided with public works to enable it to dispense with the localisation of its Lana Pund. By

these reservations, whatever crumbs of comfort the Financial Statement contained for Canterbury are ruthlessly swept away.” Now we are prepared to condemn the proposals of the Grovernmcnt in as strong terms as our contemporary has done, but we maintain that these measures are in no way the result of Abolition. They are the effect of our financial position, which certainly has not been made any worse by the sweeping away of the provinces. If there has been any change at all, a saving has been effected. Had Provincialism still continued, the Treasurer would have had the same difficulties to contend with, and it would have been in the power of Parliament to appropriate a portion of the Land Fund of Canterbury to relieve the colony from its present embarrassment. Our contemporary knows perfectly well that Parliament has never abandoned this right. Our Land Fund has always depended upon the good faith of the majority of the house, and ever since 1850 there has been a growing party bent on making it Colonial. The moment that they secured a majority in the House, irrespective altogether of the existence of the provinces, our Land Fund would have disappeared.