HON. DR FINDLAY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2892, 18 August 1909, Page 29

HON. DR FINDLAY.

REPLY TO MR MASSEY. • WELLINGTON, August 14. Interviewed to-day, the Hon. Dr liijd-.. lay was asked, "Do you see that Mr Massey calls you a special pleader for the Government and says that you are not taken seriovisly by the public ? "Oh, yes," replied Dr Findlay, 'very crushing criticism, isn't it? But 1 am getting quite used to Mr Haley's conftant fractice of throwing my P»f«w«n at me as a sufficient answer to anything I say on political questions My caustic critic seems to think that a man's calling settles the validity and sincerity of his arguments. Thus, I suppose a, large sheep-farmer must, by vwtueof his occupation have a lofty and abiding sense of Conscience, candour, and the commonweal. Mr Massey begins his reply to me with this delightful arguments ad hominem, and his friends rnnst surely regret that he didn't confine himself to it This would at least have avoided a display of controversial methods much more amusing to his opponents than to his party. The Leader of the Opposition's first rule of controversy appears to be 'It is easier and safer to answer what was not said than what was said, just as it is easier to knock down a dummy of your own making than to get within the guard of an actual antagonist ' Let me illustrate this. I am told— to use Mr Massey's exact words— that 'Dr Findlay at Timaru tried to leave the impression that the present Government bad reduced taxation. 1 (Mr Massey) corrected that impression by pointing out from their own figures that the taxation had- very greatly increased during the time of the present Administration.' Thus lam represented and thu'& answered by Mr Massey. Now for what I did say at Timara. I said that the taxation upon the great mass of our people had been reduced by the present Government by an amount equal to from 25 per cent, to 30 per cent., while more was now paid in direct 7 taxation by some 41,000 people, not because the rate had been increased, but because their wealth or income had greatly increased. This- Mr Massey unequivocally denied, and fell>ack for proof upon a turn in simple division found in the Year Book, where the total taxation from all sources, direct and indirect, is divided by our total population (man, woman, and child), and thus an increased per capita quotient is shown. Does Mr Massey still maintain his former denial that the masses, of our people are now paying less in taxation than formerly: That is the question? " Again, Mr Massey represents m^e as saying : ' There seems no rea&on why, after a certain degree of remoteness of kinship, the claim of the State should not prevail over that of the relative.' I said (as the report of my speech will

show) no such thing. In Dunedin W was dealing -with death duties, and It there pointed out that in 15 years";. £51,000,000 of -wealth in deceased estates^ had passed to hands that had not earned^ it, while all the State got was the; absentee relatives. Mr Massey also said ;l 'I don't know what Dr Findlay means by a certain degree of remoteness, and h« has -Taken care not to explain.' Thus I" am credited with a statement that whera^ property is left by a deceased to aa absentee relative ol remote kinship the « State's claim to that property— the State; . that had helped to make much oi thato wealth— was £3 16s per cent. I showed , that many of our largest e&tates escaped duty altogether, and 1 then declared that* - when a man died ie New JZealand withoufmaking any will— that is, without leaving * any intimation as to whom he wishea ' his wealth to go, and, moreover, die<t without leaving anyone in New Zealand related to him, no matter how remotely-- \ it was unfair that that wealth should; pass out of New Zealand, where th» : wealth was made, to some second cousin , or more distant nextof-kin resident i abroad, of whose existence the dtceased^r -was probably not even aware. I made it ■; perfectly clear that I was dealing— (l), with cases where "the deceased had left no , direction as to how his estate should go ; (2) with- remote relatives, such as second' cousins and those of more distant kinship; and (3) where these relatives were absentees, and had no claim of any kind upon the deceased. I suggested no limitation.) Of the owner's right in such cases to leave the property by will to whom he pleased— to the Emperor of China, if lia thought tit. That-is what I said correctly, stated. Does Mr Massey a.gree with my, •view, and, if not, why not? . " Then M* Msussey states : 'In dealing with land settlement Dr Findlay says that Denmark effected its remarkable subdivision of estates by a progressive land tax. That statement is misleading.' Why does Mr Massey say this statement is misleading? Does he deny its accuracy? Apparently. Let me, then, cite a reliable authority. "Mr Andrew Carnegie is not a Socialist, and is usually reputed to be most accurate about, his facts. This is what he says in Ids book, 'Problems of To-day,' published last year (I use his own words): 'That wonderful little country! Denmark not long ago was in the hands, of a few owners, who rented it to farmers, whose position was that of farmers in the United Kingdom to day. The land that 70-odd years ago was in the hands of a few is now owned by no less than 86,000 people and, as to 75,000 of the holdings, the law prevents their being merged to^ form larger farms or estates. No revolu-,'. tion was necessary to produce thu change — no Government ownership. The country was divided into farms of a _ceitai» size, and a' progressive land tax levied. For one man cultivating one farm th© tax was- small. If he haxi another the tax was much greater, and so on until the additions became prohibitive, the object being to favour the- owning of farms by. those who cultivated thorn.' Mr Carnegie adds : ' The produce of the land is now three times as great as under the former system of large proprietors.' Will Mr Massey now tell me where my statements about Denmark ace misleading? ITa greatly admires the methods of the Danish, Government. Does he approve of thu severity of the method by which the large estates" of Denmark -were broken up? Does he desire our progressive land tax to be made like the Danish one—prohibitive? "Mr Massey assures his interviewer that all I have said indicates that tha Government intends to increase taxation. As regards death duties. I certainly think they should be ir< leased, for the reasons I have already fully given from the platform. The intention of the Government to increase these duties was stated by the Prime Minister some- months ngo. Aa regards other taxation, either direct or illdirect, I have nowhere suggested that ifc should be increased My motive for dealing with ths subject of taxation was to refute the constancy-repeated charge tbat the present Government had - in-i creased the burd«n n|>on the great masses of the people. The people who are making such a fuss about taxation just now are those bret able to pay it. There are 950,000 of our people who have neither land nor income large enough to pay direct taxation. ■ Private wealth in New Zealand has increased over 250 millions sterling in 17 years. That increase would give every adult man and woman in NewZealand today nearly £500. each. Who mainly have got this enormous increase in our private wealth ? Mainly those who are now complaining about our taxation — those who because their wealth has growtf, and largely because of what the Stato itself has done, have now, at the old rate, to pay something more in taxation. That is really their complaint, and, like the workman in Punch's recent cartoon, most people would like to have half of that complaint. I am glad Mr Massey, has given up the wages fund fallacy, bufc he really should not have misled some o£ his. journalistic friends -into thinking that it was as sound and relentless as the lav of gravitation."