The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 235, 31 January 1855, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Wednesday, Jan. 31, 1855. We have no wish to be drawn into a! long controversy with a correspondent whose style, like that of " The Framer," resembles so closely the style of the most voluminous writer on small legal points in the Province. Even the charge of want of " patriotism " will not induce us to recommend an attempt to obtain what we have no claim to, or to prefer legal quibblings to plain.common sense. Unfortunately the term "patriot" has sunk very low in these days. We are not ambitious of the title, and leave it ungrudgingly to grievance mongers and amateur lawyers. There is one point, however, on' which the whoie argument of our correspondent rests, and which requires a short answer He says that under the Canterbury Association's regulations 10s. was the price of the land, and that £2 10s was paid as contributions tor special purposes. We are very scrry to see such a quibble raised again. The

question was raised once by the Association in relation to the claims of the New Zealand Company ; but the Crown would not, listen to any such theory. It is very \y e ji known that the Canterbury system was talked of as the high priced system—that £3 an acre was quoted as the price of Canterbury land. , ; It is true that it was explained to purchasers that a great part of the price was virtually paid for improvements which would make their land more valuable ; that the high price prevented the necessity of rates and taxes; but it was not distinctly put forward that the price and the tax were separate and levied in a different way, as the price and the rate will be levied according to the scheme which the Provincial Government now proposes. If we buy an expensive watch with new powers and improvements, it may be explained to us very justly, that we get the value of our money, that it is not dearer than a plain common watc ; but the high price that we pay is the price of the watch. What the feelings of the General Assembly on the subject would be was so well known to the Provincial Government that in the preamble to the Rate Ordinance proposed, the intention is distinctly .stated of separating the price from the rate, in order that the Province may have a power over the latter, which it could not have in any other way., The title under the Association's powers of sale could not be obtained till £3 was paid ;—according to the Provincial Government proposal crown grants will issue on the payment of 10s. In both cases the title must be given upon the payment of the price of the land. Even " The Framer" could scarcely expect that, if we put the price of land at £3, and then claimed £2 10s. out of that sum for our own disposal, under the plea of its being a special contribution, the General Assembly would listen to us one moment. They would look upon our request as a quibbling evasion, as the English Government looked upon the idea when advanced by the. Association in order to thwart the New Zealand Company. If we argued after the fashion of " The Framer " we should never get at the real price of land in any country, for almost everywhere the price paid for waste lands is turned to the public advantage in some shape or anothtr; generally in promoting Immigration and public works. One word moie. " The Framer" has tried to prove too much. He says, " The money paid under the Canterbury regulations consists of two parts, the ' price of the land,' and the ' local rate.' The Constitution Act makes no mention of local rates in the 66th clause, which hands over to the General Assembly ths "revenues arising from taxes, duties rates, and imposts levied in virtue of any Act of the General Assembly, and from the disposal of the Waste Lands of the Crown." Now granting for the sake of argument that the £2 10s. is a local rate, our correspondent forgets that it is now levied in virtue of an Act of the General Assembly, viz.: —The Waste Lands' Act of the last session. This Act ratified the Regulations and it is by virtue of it-that they exist at the present time. The conclusion is evident. Even supposing " The Frainer's " theory of price and rate to be correct, that rate is at the disposal of the General Assembly. We think that the majouty of our readers will prefer to leave in the hands of the General Assembly what is clearly their due, and what they are sure to insist upon; rather than to follow the example of those whose sole aim is to obtain all they, can for their own Province legall)- or illegally, without any consideration for consistency of principle, or unity of action in the policy _of_tho_country as a whole.