The Sun FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 1925. A GENTLEMAN OF FORTUNE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 339, 26 April 1928, Page 8

The Sun FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 1925. A GENTLEMAN OF FORTUNE

IT is a long time now since Mr. Winston Churchill was first * hailed in British politics as “a gentleman of fortune whose aplomb, daring, and incomparable insolence suggest the clatter of hoofs in the moonlight, the clash of swords on the turnpike road.” Passing years may have mellowed his manner and enhanced his boyish rotundity, but their influence has not diminished liis love of high adventure. As Chancellor of the Exchequer this audacious man triumphantly practises a highwayman’s policy beside which the brigandage of Dick Turpin was merely the importunity of a timid wayside mendicant. With an enthusiasm which savours of schoolboy glee, he not only budgets for a State income of rather more than £812,000,000 this year, hut coolly proposes to revive an old trick and establish, as a predecessor did twentythree years ago, a fixed debt charge—a mere trifle of £350,000,000 a year. This, declares the jovial bandit, would extinguish the nation’s external and internal debt, including the debt to the United States, without any addition to the present taxation in a period of fifty years. So far, the echo of cheering has not been heard in this hemisphere, but already those with ears to hear have heard the murmur of British admiration.

There have been many great Chancellors of the Exchequer, but Mr. Churchill is the first with the ability to make oppressed taxpayers curse in goodwill, and even with a note of appreciation. Perhaps they realise that the gay administrative robber, like the old-fashioned gentlemen of the heath, only loots those who can afford to pay, and never robs the poor. He knows the ways of the wealthy, and we all may he sure that the quick, roving eye which caught a chaffing greeting from a Westminster busdriver, had not previously overlooked the blatant parade of bejewelled mannequins in New Bond Street and the queue of aristocratic spendthrifts, nor had been deaf to the continuous purr of limousines in Piccadilly Circus. They all have been remembered in his remarkable Budget. Motorists have been stung to the quick, and are now called upon to pay a petrol tax on top of a stiff registration fee based on horse-power. In response, thousands of motor-horns are honking a furious protest. The bland Treasurer knew what he was doing in waving a friendly hand to a passing busman. The consoling virtue of a rax on petrol, which has been characterised already as “wicked, iniquitous, and ruinous,” is the fact that the revenue from it will create a pooled fund for the relief of sorely-smitten industries. A useful sacrifice is sufferable with some grace. Though the third Churchill Budget mostly holds much to make British men and women proud of their land, its resources, its resiliency, and its high moral courage in adversity, it also contains something of extraordinary interest to the people and politicians of this country. It is true that, like the Dominion’s Treasurer, Mr. Churchill has declined to reduce income taxation, hut unlike Mr. Stewart, he has refrained from adding anything to it. A generous allowance has been granted to taxpayers with children to rear and educate. In this the wily Chancellor has foreseen a dual reward. Thousands of young mothers will vote in the feminine majority at the next general election, and it will be hoped that many of their offspring will have been born “little Conservatives.”

But the greatest lessons for New Zealand’s mediocre, visionless politicians are these: Mr. Churchill practises departmental economy, reduces indebtedness, provides a splendid sinking fund, undertakes to readjust the burden on local ratepayers, and strives to promote industry. A gentleman cf fortune! This country would be richer if it were ruled anu robbed (legally by taxation, of course) by a political brigand of Mr. Churchill’s calibre and genial courage.

THAT “ VAGRANCY ” AMENDMENT

CITIZENS will look forward with some hope for the repeal of the iniquitous amendment to the Police Offences Act, passed in 1926, now that it has been condemned from the Bench by a magistrate. In dismissing a charge of vagrancy against a man as Gisborne the other day, Mr. Levvey, S.M., satirically observed that he supposed Parliament had given the amendment “some consideration” before passing it. “But,” said the magistrate, “if it were applied as it could be applied, God help the community. I cannot support a position that gives the police the right to bring a man before the Court on a charge that assumes he is guilty before he is proved innocent.” In this condemnation, the magistrate supports what was said by The Sun in a leading article in May of last year, when Commissioner Mcllveney boasted that he was responsible, “after a hard fight,” for the amendment in question—which was termed by an Auckland solicitor of high standing as “a monstrous piece of legislation.” The Sun declared the amendment to be a complete negation of the principles of British justice, and pointed out that under it a constable could arrest any man for vagrancy on mere suspicion and place upon that man the onus of proving his innocence. “Thus,” said The Sun, “Magna Charta is thrown on the (rubbish heap of a discarded Constitution, and every man is guilty until he is proved innocent. . . . There is in this iniquitous law all the opportunities for what the Americans term ‘railroading’.” That is the position with regard to the law to-day. The remarks of Mr. Levvey, S.M., have again illustrated its pernicious nature, and Parliament should lose no time in repealing it and thus frankly admitting its mistake.