Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1890. Mr. Pirani.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 21 October 1890, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1890. Mr. Pirani.

r • • — - — «r — ■ — - • • Elsewjieke will be found -• a . letter from Mr Pirnni complaining^hat we have misteported, misrepresented .and o bused him. This is not so, as j at tho last meeting, in Foxton he referred to the .very fair and iroparliiiUeport appealing in this paper of hi j first meeting. Our treatment of

him as nut buen altered. The statement;, that our ns-»ertion that he re-

tusH .0:-. jiswii* a question "is uutrue, « w s iiever uskod them a<a pub Ie meeiiug " is a q iU»le, aud noihug m vh n r less, us he menMuned ihat he intended rep ying to • lie Mamuva v !'«i v <!d. and 'then J)ur eil the q'nb'. •''!)- he dis'iked. vt ihe ox on uititit-ing, in answer to | Mi- -tewa r, Air Pira i assorted hat he did i o know whi "unimproved." uiiitl nu 1 ut, but accepted the Cm in ssioner's meani g. He bused' his j Mixiitiuu proposals ■on ■ this report, and our answer was based on the same, report finely we accepted the Coniniissioner's • vktue of "unimproved " properties just as Mr Pirani did, only we arrived at veiy different conclusions. We have not 3tarted from; "' fftlse preguses," nor have ■we-.'i* based ridiculous assumptions on them." We proved that it i (Bot'jp'ossible to raise £750,000 I fivvifchJM ona per cent tax, and we proved that if the truth came out, this land tax would " mean the withdrawal from every body holding land, the exemption of £500 hither-'tld-bnjoyetij 7 so^tliht every- farmer,- no matter how small his holding, wi'l •be liable-tQ^asafcian, for.' .titii sin of owing land, if every bit of it is not i imprpve.d."- In our leader -;of the i6th instant we showed that <f the Unionist programme denmnded a Lund Tax on all land, exclusive of improvements " hut that Mr Pirani had asserted that he did not wish to ! ihcrease*the'"burdens of (Ke farmers. Until however he will explain what Ife "means " hy ""Tife liifimproved value of land" we may certainly be unfortunate" enough" to N!misrepresent " him, but we should have taken it as' being the vnhie of land "unimproved," but as Mr Pirani says it is very different, we'suppose that he means now to tax all land to the full extent of the value put :.upp.n ..the land-, exempting only .buildings'. .andfenoes, .The last state of this man is worse than the first, but, it .makes . the cgnclusion he arrives at, as io revenue .derivable, none the less erroneous Mr' Pirani writes ."In .pouring, .out ,how the fland-tax would! bear heavily on the. farmers you wilfully conceal the fact that I propose to exempt the necessaries of hie -from Cnstoms Duties, which would save from £10 to £14 a year to every farmer with a. family, a very important consideration." "Why tiny farmer should be misled by this statement it is hard to believe 1 . Sur-ly if farmer's with' a family will save from £10 to £14 a year' in Custom Diatiesy* labourers with families will save the same, and the farmers will have to pay £20 .itfli,£2§,a --year land tax., to. find the revenue 'stopped from the Customs., We have good grouuds for believing HhStfW Pirani Ms Hflre " -labour " interest only at heart, as he .is.,^ Knight of Labour and thiVomly is paying h ; s election expenses, If returned his duty is to them first, the -constituency' af terwiwdai. If .t-ii-Q. Knights of Labour are, as stated a eecret so.ciety,,uo ; jejectqr-lMio^s how inimical* their mteresfs may not be' to the public at Jarge/- • } .. li .'' t . We now cumio to when we must, consider whether we have in any way misrepresented My Pivani. In Our feports ''wa-dealare that' 'we have not, in our leaders we Have not wilfully, and any jerror,li.es : - at the speaker's doorf/'ftot ptifs.. Tor instance he s^jsVh'e' is 'not '.'a " strong protecti6uist ? > './\v'e''CortaiiVy under stood hini ib b'd, 'if iio't, what is he ? He is" not a\ Freetrader, at least so he told us at Poiton. He writes il \ did hot"'6iy" t would or would not" ' 'support Mr Balance." That iS just what the electors have aright to know. He asserted that Mr Ballahce had written to ask him. 'to stand, permitted his hearers to believe " he woul^ support the present 'Goverhrhetftashe said "he would do nothing 'to upset the ex : isting state of things, uiiless some thing very diffgrbiit occurs " Of course, if Mr Pirani does not know what he is gorng to do, he is right to take time to think about it, our' offence appears tb ' lie" in having, stated" that ' ( ouf candidate's opinion on the : two parties in the House are difficult to understand." We still think So, and' circumstances have occurred to show that they are* difficult . to understand on other points In Foxton, Mr Pirani was pleassd- to declare that the 75 million pounds worth of land would pro* duce£7sojQoQ-i£year, and that he was ngain&ttaxing:.&ba.entees as they had -crily-.;ohe» iniHioa- of property and numbered-: only 114,: and he was n gainst a class tax.- He. even went fu*fth«r, and- stated it suras -.Mr Wilson who proposed this. to» curry* favour with the working classes. However, at Palmerston last- week, Mr Pirani is reported to have said " that it was a fact that 1615 people in the colony owned 18 million acres of lnnd, and further, 1140 of these large land owners were permanent absentees, and only contributed slightly to the revenue under the property tax system. These absentees now paid Id in the £, but under the system his party proposed they would pay 2£d in the £on their bare acres." Who understands what Mr Pirani means ? ! W hich are there, 114 or 1140 absentees ? aud is he in favour of taxing absentees by a c'aas tax or not ? Do his Palmerston hearers understand that all land will be taxed, or only the land owned by these 1615 people ? Minvepivaented I why who

can r. present him. In couc usion, we have never said nr ihuiuht that. Mr t'irani desir d t represent tho whole c nstituoncy, mu>h more the whole o ony. We have p ,ivo<l Mr Piraii's figures relative io tl)O 75 mi lion pounds worth of and to he wholly ina'C'ira c ne will now assert thai, h i-. as eqally incorrect in slating that 1615 people uwned 18 mi' ion acres of 1 nd. There need be no ani.ry words or misconception* on 'his point, 'as in the Crcnui Lands Deprirtmeuts revolt to PHrliament, dated the, 18th Juue^ 1890, on page 8, a summary' of lands disposed of from, the Foundation of the Co' ony to the 3lsfc March, 1890, is given, and the total /area sold is 12,928,577 acres ! ! •! . ; Mf JPiraui ?a bound to state where, he obtained his figures for -the statements made in Palu.firston, that 1.615 pejpl.o held 18 millio'u aqr.ts, J^ni ,we will gladly publish his -explanation? --also as to why ho ■omitted any 'reference at Paloierston to the 75 Million; p'rdjjpsals he made bwe-. ■ ,{1 £ly,-y- ':■/■■■