Rangitikei Advocate. FRIDAY, AUGUST 23. 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8902, 23 August 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. FRIDAY, AUGUST 23. 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

IN another column wo publish a report’ of .an address delivered in Mar ton by an apostle of single-tax. lu rather ingenious fashion this missionary disguised the real intent of the single-tax propaganda by advocating free trade and free laud, but the general tenor of bis address left no doubt as to the end in view. The speaker complained that Mr McNab’s Bill does not make it easy for landless men to get land. But the columns of most of the newspapers in the colony contain long advertisements in which laud agents arc offering properties, so that there is no dearth of supply, and any man who can pay a sufficient deposit will have no difficulty in securing a holding. Me can only conclude, thciefore, that the singletaxer's idea is that every man should bo able to obtain laud for nothing. Whether it is desirable that all the people should be laudusers only, or whether there is sufficient to supply all, are cpiostious that we need not now deal with further than to remark that as Now Zealand should some day contain nuuiv millions of people the land held'by each will be of very small area if every person is to bo a landholder. The speaker’:', address bristled with fallacies, to a few of which we may refer. It is alleged, for instance, that laud values are created by the presence of population. Tliis is a stock argument of the single-taxers, but it is true only in part. Until population arrived here, of course, there was little laud value in the colony, and even years afterwards Governments were glad to sell it in blocks for £1 or even 10s per acre. But the class of the population who create laud values are the laud-users themselves. No value is given to laud by the presence of the tramps, the recipients of charitable aid, the men who live ou their wits, the racecourse- followers, or the dependent class. Ou the contrary, these detract from laud values, because the laud has ro bear the harden of their existence. If their number was doubled the burden on the laud would be so much the heavier. And the census returns reveal the significant facts that out of our population of nearly a million there are only 247,55!) male breadwinners, and that of those only 101,18-1 are classed as industrial. The other three-quarters of a million are dependents, and it should be obvious even to a singletaxor that these do not create laud values. Their presence, so far as such value is concerned, is an injury rather than a benefit, from the standpoint of the political .economist, into whose calculations sentiment does not enter. To a slight extent all breadwinners influence land values, but the real "creators arc the land-users themselves, wiio.se money —paid in rates and taxes, or for improvements on their holdings in the shape of hushfelliug, fencing, etc., in the country, and buildings and public improvements in the towns—has created the added values. Though there is a striking contrast between the value of. say, tin acre in the centre of Wellington to-day and its value fifty years ago, if account was taken ot the capital originally invested nu it, the buildings erected, with interest on the whole, together with rates and taxes, and interest thereon also, it would he found that its present day value has been made by its owners and paid for by them.

THE single-taxers are evidently disappointed because the Ministry Ims not yet dared to confiscate land values for the benefit of the socialists, but they also evidently live in hope. The speaker dolefully deplored that nearly 100,000 out of 133.000 freeholders do not pay any land tax, while the consumers arc taxed through the Customs to the extent o' about 2% millions. Without accepting the accuracy of those figures we may point out that the 138.000 are also consumers, and iu addition to general and special rates to provide money for public use, they also pay Customs duties. Therefore, if strict justice was meted out they should not have to pay Customs duties, or if they continued to do so, the cost of roads, bridges and other public facilities should be charged to iho Treasury and be paid out of Customs revenue, not be made- a charge on the laud. The single-taxer is necessarily a freetrader, but apparently lie cannot distinguish between a protective and a revenue-producing tariff, the latter of which would make it unnecessary to levy any taxation on the laud. We observe" that the single-taxors always evade any <inestiou which would compel them to explain how they propose to safeguard and recompense the people who would have to pay the whole of the taxation, under this proposal of the landless. There would bo no Customs duties, so that the tanner who was forced by the greater weight of taxation to ask for more money, for his products sent tollm locallnarketT’courdliot got it,

because if he demanded a shilling abushel more for his oats or wheat, or more for any other ’ product, the j door would be wide open for the j entry of corn, potatoes, etc., from j Australia and elsewhere. Even, under existing conditions the social- j ists iiowl loudly when dearth sends up ; local prices. Clearly the producer | could not recoup himself locally for | any additional impost be was made to pay, while, of course, in tho Loudon market his produce would not fetch any more than it did before. Then, again, the tax would bo paid by tho minority, but the majority would control the expenditure, and fix the amount of tax. How do the single-taxers propose to moot this grave objection? Do they propose that only those who actually pay the tax shall have the right to vote? We can scarcely expect them to be willing to thus disfranchise themselves.

THE Court of Appeal has thrown a bombshell into the ranks of the Trades Unionists. It has upheld tho majesty of the law’ by declaring that if fines inflicted by the Arbitration Court arc not paid thou the delinquents may be “attached or imprisoned. Hitherto the opinion lias been held that tho man who had nothing ou which distraint could be made was a freelance who could doty tho Arbitration Court if it fined him for refusing to obey its mandate, while the employer, of course, could bo distrained on. so that be naturally preferred to pay up and look as pleasant as trying circumstances. The Appeal Court has no\v declared that both are in the same position. The decision, how’ever, is not likely to altogether dismay tho Lords of Laziness. They still control the Ministry, and no doubt an effort, will be made to amend the Act so that it w’ill practically have no effect when applied to the employees. In tho meantime the decision stands, and it will be interesting to note [further developments.