THE STANDARD. SATURDAY JANUARY 18, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 19, 18 January 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

SATURDAY JANUARY 18, 1873.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

Iy addressing ourselves to a consideration of the Education Act recentlypassed by the Provincial Council we cannot wonder that our local School Committee paused before entering upon the discussion of a question fraught with so many difficulties ; nevertheless there seems to be but one course before them. Clauses 14 and 15 of the Act provide for the creation of Educational districts, either upon a memorial of not less than 10 householders, or by an independent motion of the Central Board, and the Inspector has requested the Committee 4 ‘ to acquaint the Board with the boundaries most suita“ble” for forming a district here. Considering that it was the boundary question which rendered the Committee powerless in enforcing a temporary rate some time since, we think the sooner a meeting is called to settle, discuss and understand the working of the present Act the better. Proceeding to the principle involved in the Act we confess to a great modification of a feeling of opposition to it on a more intimate acquaintance with its details. No system of direct taxation that can be devised by the brain of man will partake of a pleasant form in its bearing on the varied interests of society. A pleasing fiction attends most of the modes in which we submit to pay money in support of public insti-

tutions ; some happy delusion has only to surround the doing of a thing, keeping the real object out of sight, and the end is achieved with an alacrity of acquiescence quite astonishing. Thus, take the vile system of “ shouting so prevalent in our day. The goodhumoured, business-minding “ shouter, submits to a taxation, which amounts annually to an enormous burden—-whose great charin is the spontaueousness which accompanies the imposition, and a firm belief that the tax is not only necessary, but equitable and just; it is a duty he has to perform, and he does it with pleasure. Let a tax gatherer meet the victim of “ a shake in the hat, or one who has, through a good-natured, but mistaken, generosity shouted for “all hands” to the time of “seven “glasses,” and request the‘payment of the Education rate, he at once stigmatises the rate as an imposition, and swears that the taxes of the country are oppressing the people to the very verge of ruin. There arc certainly one • or two objectionable features connected with the present Act, but let us see if there are not some countervailing advantages. The objections that will be raised with much force, will be directed more towards the uniformity of the rate than the necessity which renders it necessary, and against the. injustice of which we desire to protest. It bears hard upon the single men, and married people without families, even supposing they can afford it ; while to those who are sufficiently poor as not to be able to pay the tax without sacrifice, but not so poor as to come under the poverty clause, and plead in forma pauperis, it is an unequitable burden whose weight is in the exact proportion to the lightness of his richer neighbours’ liability—that is, in as far as this one rate is concerned. But let us take the other hardship which, while not bringing much comfort to those already mentioned, may act somewhat as a set off. We allude to those who must and do pay the tax, but prefer to send their children to private schools which receive no aid from the Government. Even supposing the graduated scale proposed by Mr. Ellis had been adopted, viz., on dwelling houses possessing an annual rental value up to £2o—7s. 6d. per annum; up to £so—- — per annum; over £50 —255. per anuum, it would certainly have relieved the classes in large towns which are the least able to pay, but the hardship; if so it be, would still lie upon those who happen to live in houses rated at the maximum value, and who either have no families, or are educating their children at an expensive cost by other means.

Now let us see what the other side gains. Suppose a man to have a family of four children, two under, and two over eight years old; he has to pay in the one case one shilling a w r eek each, which amounts to five pounds four shillings per annum: and in the other case two shillings a week each, or ten pounds eight shillings per annum: making a total of fifteen pounds twelve shillings per annum. We have purposely taken the rates chargeable at our own local school, as an illustration of our argument; and, although a reduction of about 25 pier cent, or more in some cases, is made in favor of families sending a number of pupils, the charge for education falls very heavy at the end of the year. Under the altered state of the law, the same number of children can obtain the same amount of education for Two pounds per annum: thus, one pound per annum as a householder, and a capitation tax of one pound, or five shillings per head. This latter tax, which is sustained solely by the family man, we can only suppose was inserted in the Act to equipoise the effect of the former on those who, admittedly, derive no direct or immediate advantage from education; and to extract the sting from the uniformity clauses. Practically, then, there is a difference in what is understood to be the uniform application of the Act, or, in other words, there is no uniformity at all ; for, although “every householder” has to pay an equal rate alike, the family man has to pay 25 per cent, per head according to the number of his children, in addition thereto, which brings it to about the same condition as Mr. Ellis’ motion aimed at. It would occupy more space than we can command to shew the unenlightened

state of thought indulged in by those who, having no children of their own, abuse a tax of this kind (we don’t say this one) as a necessity put upon them to pay for educating the children of other people. It is a stock, stump, argument which, although it may satisfy those who do not understand, and are not interested in the matd-ials on which human society is built up, cannot but be condemned as false in principle by philanthropists, economists and statesmen. We shall recur to this subject again.