Untitled

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1312, 21 June 1880, Page 2

On. a previous occasion y?c pointed out how unfairly and unevenly different portions of the Colony would be treated under the sub.stitnte for the subsidies to local bodies proposed by the Ministry. We then showed that while some parts of the Colony would lose vastly others would be gainers. We pointed out that under the proposed arrangement the Borough of Oamaru Would lose something like L2OOO a-year. Now let Us see what is the case of another town of no greater iipportapce, the claims to consideration of which only excel those of Oamaru by the fact that it ha? tjvo members of the House of Representatives tied baud and foot to the present Ministry, while those from th : s" district are on the opposite side of the House. According to the local Telegraph the value of Government property in Napier at the last valuation was over L37,0Q0, a shilling rate upon which would .realise oyer LIS.OO, '- .a large?? gijru " than that received by the borough fpr subsidies last year. Take again the case of Wangar nui. That borough last year received as subsides LI9OO, but under the new fm'apgement it will, backed up by a special rate, only receive L2SO. The three cases mentioned clearly demonstrate the inequality and unfairness of the proposal; but they are pot the only instances that might be brought forward. Wfren we take into consideration tlje additional that the larger value of Government, buildings ip Napier is evidence of a freer expenditure of public money there than in Oamaru, that pot only has that town been favored, but is to bff paid for the favors it has received, and that the land fund of the South is' to be taken to enrich a part of the Colony which cannot lay claim to a land fund, WS are forced to the conclusion that a gross injustice is proposed to be perpetrated under the guise of a scheme for " separating local from general finance,"