THE STANDARD. SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 71, 19 July 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

SATURDAY, JULY 19, 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.”

“ Under which King, Bezonian ? Speak, or die.” There are several very important questions to be entered upon, at the annual meeting of ratepayers in the Highway District, on Monday next. These are: — The election of five members to serve on the District Highway Board during the ensuing year; an adjustment of the principle on which rates are to be levied tor the same period ; the advisability of amending the boundaries of the present District; and (though not forming part of the substantive business of the meeting) not the least important one of “ Separation,” — geographically, financially, and politically, —from the Province of Auckland.

With regard to the first of these, we are glad to find that the settlers of Ormond, although late in the day, have adopted a course which it would have been well for other districts to have adopted also. We do not agree entirely with all that' they did at the meeting held on Wednesday (a report of which appears in another column) but we cordially coincide with the wisdom which characterized the major part of the proceedings, and the determination expressed by the Ratepayers to have reform of some sort; but within the four corners of the Acts, which confer the power of striking a rate, the object of the Ormond settlers, in seeking to be relieved from what is termed the “ oppressor’s wrong,” is easily to be attained. There is really little difference in their results between ’ " two only modes of rating allowed by u law—namely, a selling value, and a rental value. The argument against a rental value, until encountered by opposition, seems to possess some logical force. Its opponents say it is unfair to impose an annual addition of taxation upon the value of improvements which have been made by the owner or occupier of a property at much cost and probable personal sacrifice. But the adoption of the “ selling ” clause in its stead, will neither remove, nor modify, the principle involved in the application of the existing rate. Admittedly there is some show of hardship in the necessity for a man having to pay, more and more each year, for taxes according to the scale on which he makes improvements to the value of his holding; but a remedy for that has been provided. There is no obligation cast upon ratepayers to have an uniform tax, under either form of assessment. The “ Highway Boards Em-

powering Act, 1871,” limits the maximum of the rate only, as follows: —No rate shall be authorized “ exceeding tho “ equivalent of 5 per centum upon “ the annual value of any pro- “ perty, or one penny in the pound “on its value for sale.” The Ratepayers have full power to strike a rate which will meet the varying circumstances of an improving district, and lessen the hardship complained of. Suppose the “ value to sell ” be adopted ; then fix the full rate of one penny in the pound on all property not yet assessed, or where no improvements have been made on property taxed last year; but where improvements have been effected, let the rate be struck independently of them, or deduct so much, as may be. fixed upon, for each £5O worth of annual expenditure. But, in any case, there seems to be no escape from having to pay for the increased value, (even if at a less rate) at which properties may be considered to have improved, from the force of many collateral circumstances, independently of a money outlay upon them. What we take to be a desirable alteration of the taxing power of the “ Highways Act” lies in the direction of absenteeism. The comparative immunity from taxation which non-occupying proprietors enjoy, while their properties are being enhanced yearly in value by their neighbors’ industry, is an evil, far greater, to the rest of the community, than that which enforces an ad valorem rate, separate and distinct from the question as to how that value is to be arrived at. If the Ratepayers give this matter a consideration, they may be able to effect an improvement in the existing law, which is much to be desired ; but in adopting the resolution carried at the Ormond meeting, our own revenue will be decreased twofold ; we shall collect less ourselves, and receive less (if any at all) from the Road Board Grants. We believe it is intended to submit to the meeting some stem facts in favor of the Separation movement, to which we have alluded ; and if it be possible to consider a matter of so much importance on Monday, we hope it will meet with that earnestness of support which it deserves. There is no time to be lost. We are already late in the field. The Petition to Parliament will take some time to get signed, and in the meantime we cannot do better than review our position; what it has been; what it is, and what it may be. If we have, almost unaided, achieved so much ; if we have increased in numbers and material wealth, in the face of the Provincial Government, who,

“ With the fault of the Dutch, “ Give too little, while they take too much.” —if we have managed our own local affairs successfully so far; if we have afforded to give to Auckland some £3,000 or £4,000 from Land Sales alone, in the short space of two or three years —surely we possess strength and influence enough to make ourselves heard in a firm advocacy of our claim to extended political privileges. We shall have opposition no doubt; but the arguments our opponents use will be our chief weapons of defence. We do not want any of the money Auckland intends to try to borrow ; therefore we say let us be free to disengage ourselves before other financial embarassments present themselves ; but we do want to save what we have left, and are likely to get, from the interested and mercenary control of the Provincial Executive.