New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4307, 9 January 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1875.

Me. Walter Johnston’s speech to his constituents at Foxton, which we reported yesterday, is quite out of the ordinary run of post-sessional addresses. It was clear, clever, and incisive ; and as an outspoken criticism of the Government policy, and the result of recent legislation, it will be appreciated by men of all shades of political opinion in the colony. Standing side by side with the report of Mr. Bowen’s speech, as it appeared in our columns, Mr. Johnston’s remarks read uncommonly like a reply to the Ministerial statement at Kaiapoi, although, of course, this was only a coincidence. But it is a coincidence that may have some significance in it. However, that is for the future ; at present, we have simply to deal with what was said at Foxton. It will be observed that Mr. Johnston did not Havel beyond the record. Ho confined himself solely to criticism. We have no indication whatever from him as to the course he is likely to take in the coming session, except on one question, namely, the imposition of direct taxation. And even here, which is very delicate ground, ho spoke with more than his proverbial caution ; yet the bent of bis mind was apparent. Ho will oppose a property and income tax. That is perfectly evident from the context ; and for the reason stated by Mr. Johnston, we think a proposal of the kind should be resisted by a majority of tlie House. There is no reason why direct taxation should be imposed. Those who threaten it, and advocate its imposition as a means for equalising taxation, fail to perceive where the shoe pinches the toes of the Hew Zealand taxpayer. Mr. Johnston understands the position fully ; and he let fall a few words which lead us to infer that he will be prepared, when the time comes, to make it clear to the meanest comprehension. Agreeing, as we do most thoroughly, with Mr. Johnston on this point, we shall leave it for the present in the position in which it was left by him at Foxton. There is no immediate necessity' to mature public opinion regarding it : suffice it to say, that the colonists of New Zealand will not consent to tax themselves to pay interest on the public works and immigration loan, as long as “ there is a revenue,” (to quote Mr. Bowen,) “that drops, as it were “ from heaven, that appears to come “ without any exertion, and that is not “ raised by taxation.” So long as this financial manna lasts, the taxpayers will content themselves by applying it in aid of revenue raised by taxation. When the supply fails, it will bo time enough to face the ugly fact of direct taxation, should it then be necessary. While holding these views, we desire to guard ourselves against being supposed to oppose the principle of direct taxation. On the contrary, we believe it to bo the fairest way of raising the funds required by tlie State for public purposes ; but under the peculiar financial arrangements of this colony that principle could not now be equitably applied. It would be impolitic, moreover, to attempt it, because capital would be scared from the country; and what wo want just now, above everything else, is more capital. Mr. Johnston appears to ns to undervalue the Forests Bill. We think it was a wise and statesmanlike measure. The details may not have been perfect, but the principle of the bill was good. Doubtless the calculations of profit.from the State forests wore more suggestive than otherwise. All such estimates of possible profits must be more or less fallacious ; but Mr. Johnston treated these as a business man would treat a balanceshoot, and was therefore too severe upon the Premier. The South Sea Island scheme of trade and colonisation was open to the objections stated by the hon. gentleman ; but there is to bo set on the other side the prospect of largely extending the commercial relations of this country, of opening up now sources for industrial enterprise, and laying the foundation of political supremacy in the South Pacific. Whether those dazzling prospects could bo realised is quite another matter. The attempt has yet to bo made, although tho annexation of Fiji has somewhat changed tho position, of the question since Mr. Vogel brought it before the General Assembly. Those are tho main points in Mr. Johnston’s speech, although ho touches upon other's of considerable importance. Ho disapproves of Mr. Vogel leaving for England when careful administration was so much needed in the colony but wo have the Premier’s assurance that it was essential, in the public interest, that he alioujd go-Homo. This being so, wo are content to wait until the Assembly meets for a fuller explanation of the reasons that induced him to leave tho colony as ho has done. Speaking generally, wo should say that it is undesirable for Responsible Ministers to leavo the country. Circumstances, however, occasionally aviso whenit becomes necessary for a member of tire Executive to go abroad to represent tho Government. This would appear to be

one of these occasions, and therefore undeserving of censure. However that may may be, Mr. Johnston is entitled to his opinion, and we shall not argue the point further. It is one on which men may reasonably differ.