The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (published every wednesday and saturday.) SATURDAY, MAY 29, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 276, 29 May 1875, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (published every wednesday and saturday.)

SATURDAY, MAY 29, 1875.

41 We shall sell to no man justice or right: We •hall deny to no nian justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

We publish, this morning, several additional items, clipped from the proceedings of the Provincial Council, that cannot fail to be of interest to our readers, as they relate, more or less, to this district. Amongst the most prominent is the question asked by Mr. Crawford of the Government relative to the sale of the Patutahi Block. The pack of political Ahabs who look with such avaricious expectancy to this agrarian possession, to enrich the Provincial estate, may rest themselves quite contented on the score of any portion of the sale proceeds of that block coming to their share just yet. We are aware that an arrangement has been made between the General and Provincial Governments to the effect that the latter is to have a small finger in the confiscated lands pie, and upoti this arrangement the Provincial Executive framed their Estimates last year, bringing some £20,000 to credit of the land fund, on the assumption that the sale would take place before the end of their financial year. We told them at the time they would be disappointed, and we repeat the warning note now. If the settlers are true to themselves ; if our memberdoes his duty thoroughly no effort will be spared to prevent the sacrifice of the only valuable block of land at present in possession of the Government, in this district, a sacrifice which the .A uckland people would precipitate at any cost if, by those means, a few thousand pounds could be made by it. The 1 md is, as Mr. Crawford said, “ of a very superior description,” but we did not require that gentleman’s political sagacity to inform us as to the value of our possessions ; and we purpose showing our appreciation of those possessions by conserving them in every possible wav. We wait with

Johnson will have told the Government and Council plainly, when the Estimates are brought down, with, perhaps, a still larger item appearing on the revenue side of the account, that before the Patutahi Block is sold, a bridge will have to be built over the Waipaoa river— a fact that will give it a far more “ enhanced value ” than that of its having been surveyed—and that a “ Homestead ” or similar Act will have to be passed empowering the sale upon special conditions of occupancy, which will secure to the district the benefits of a bona fide settlement of an agricultural class, and so, the greatest good of the greatest number. The Provincial Government say in effect, let the sale take place ; let us have the money we want so badly, and the deil take the district. We retort, let justice be done ; let faith be kept with district, and the deil take the Government, for we should get “ nil ” as our share in their pickings. Mr. Lusk’s little arrangement, re the £4O damages cast against him in his action with Siddons, has been temporarily upset, a motion having been carried to the effect that the consideration of his petition, as also one from Siddons himself, be referred to the Private Grievance Committee, so long ago as last Thursday week ; therefore, with our incomplete, unsatisfactory, and irregular steam service, it is useless to do more than wait the result, in which we hope to find that justice has been done to both sides.

An important piece of intelligence is conveyed in Mr. Reader Wood’s remarks on moving the second reading of the Sheep Bill, in which he said it was “ a consolidation of all the exist- “ ing Sheep Acts,” and that it had been drawn up “ at the request of the Sheep Inspector.” The “ new provisions ” alluded to by Mr. Wood, if they are all. do not seem to comprehend any fundamental alteration, or removal of the conflicting elements in existing Acts ; the power to “ impound wander- “ ing sheep ” seems to be a step in the right direction, but we are under the impression that power is already given for that purpose under the Highways Act. Whomsoever may be meant by “ the ” Sheep Inspector, it is hardly possible that the Government contemplate a repeal of the East Coast District Sheep Act passed last Session of the Council. Mr. Rees has moved for a Bill to be brought down by the Government imposing an Income Tax of one per centum per annum on all incomes over £300; he estimates there are 1,500 persons able to pay, and that it would yield £17,000, to bedevoted “primarily to the purposes of education.” If there are not more than 1,500 persons in the Province of Auckland with incomes over three hundred pounds a year, the less such statistical poverty is aired the better. Mr. Rees’ data are wrong; so are, also, his principles of taxation. What about those whose incomes are under £3OO a year ? Is the thick end of the pole to be reversed now, for the purpose of a rank demogoguism, and, while raising the stale cry of the “ poor man,” let it fall on the pates of the richer members of the community only ? Direct taxation has its advantages no doubt; but a Provincial Council is not the power to commence such a revolution. If an income tax is to be a means of creating a revenue, the Colonial Legislature is the only recognizable authority to institute it. It must be general, not local; as a perfect system would have to be elaborated to save the tax payers from an impertinent Paul-prying into their private affairs, as also to gather in the tax on an economial scale, which, we are certain, cannot be done by the provinces, each, perhaps, having a distinct tax of its own, whose hybrid homogeneity would be even more perplexing than their different land laws.