The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1917. A FEW CAVILLING CRITICS.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 3 September 1917, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1917. A FEW CAVILLING CRITICS.

(With which is incorporated The Taihape Post and Waimarino News).

There is very little in politics now-a-days that ruffles the equanimity of any one, and are few who will 1 be surprised to learn that there are some politicians so consumed with greed that they cannot help using their perverted intelligences in cavilling at a Measure which intellectual giants and this country's greatest financiers are in chorus proclaiming a most difficult task performed . with truly wonderful' success. A printer in the House has essayed the task of financial critic, and with colossal —what shall we call it — plunges in to show the Minister of Finance and his fellow members what a hopelessly muddled affair the "Finance Act" is. There are, truly, some men s& blinded to anything but the dictates of their ow» greed that they cannot see a church when they are inside it. His voice is heard twice; he tells the House that the Finance Act was causing consternation throughout | the country by its taxation proposals. In the next breath he advocates increased expenditure on the civil service and on superannuated policemen. Men who talk like this disclose little else beyond their own insincerity, and no notice is taken of them in Parliament; they are regarded very much as political time-servers. • But this printer-politician's views are reflected in the editorial columns of a farming journal that put a more serious aspect no what is said, and distributed amongst our farmers. When that journal seriously says that by the War Loan Proposals of the "Finance Act" "one is forcibly driven to the days of Feudal Kings to find a parallel," one cannot resist the thought that it is an effort to stir up political strife. In addition to forcibly driving one to the days of feudal kings,, <our- contemporary goes on "it is doubtful if such a drastic measure was ever placed on the Statute Book of any country." Such language is too: extravagant for anything. A long cavilling critique ends by intimating that the Finance Act is hastely and badly conceived, and predicts that within a year a new method of confiscation will be required to re-

place it. The final shot is that tio i Finance Minister is rapidly achieving a reputation for' experimental finance. All that journal has to say on finance would not be likely to receive notice from any quarter, but as it does reach some farmers one naturally wonders what object or motive is behind such obviously absurd statements. In the first place the writer, whether it be the political-printer or anyone else, is not consistent. He says: "It is true that it is only the use of the money which is commandeered; the security remains in the hands of the owner of the money and he may utilise the War Bonds to raise again the cash he has been compelled to invest." Later on he calls it "a method of confiscation.',' Why? It is an obviously incorrect and unfair designation, then why is it used? We would suggest to our farming community that they have a questionable friend in a journal that expresses views that will be regarded as absurd by both Statesmen and financiers. The prediction that a new method of confiscation will be brought down next year may prove more true than our contemporary thinks it will, but it anything in the nature of confiscation does come it will be because of outrageously incorrect and insincere cayilling critics. Money is not confiscated any more than lives are confiscated by the military ballot. In fact it might be said that life is confiscated because so many of our sons will never return to us, but our money will come back, there is no question, no confiscation, about that, and it will return with an accumulation of its earnings. If we are not going to win the war with our money and our land we should like to know where these tyros or prodigies, or whatever they may be termed, are going to find the necessary wherewithals is only money that will pay our way and it is only the products of our land trat will feed our fgihting men. Land is the only source of money; it is land that is earning the high price of products; statistics of exports leave no question about that. Then what else could be taxed with any prospect at all of getting the money? As a matter of fact, with only a very, very few exceptions Members of the House, reform, liberal and labour, have' given unstinted praise and voiced their extreme admiration at the amazing degree of fairness and effectiveness of the taxation Bill. Sir John Findlay says it is the finest performance he had ever heard of. It was dubbed by one Member "an epic in legal draughtsmanship. " The worst that could be said against the Bill by an immensely wealthy farmer was that incomes of £2OO a year should be taxed, but we are convinced that every worker with four pounds a week will laugh or feel disgust at such a display of ignorance in what is necessary at this time of high prices and profits to keep body and soul together. To show his consistency this member, Mr. Pearce, says the compulsory clause is going to be a great hardship on a man having £40,000 worth of land with a £30,000 mortgage on it. Mr. Pearce means that a man with a farm worth £20,000 should be allowed to buy other farms to the value of another £20,000, mortgaging his original farm as well as those bought, and so get rid of taxation altogether. The- ways of the land aggregator are indeed inscrutable. Other farmer members of the House frankly admitted that these were not normal times in any respect and that it was ridiculous to complain at the adjustment" of taxation. We have the cause of the farmer at heart as much or more than any journal in this country, and we have had no reason, after reading discussions in Parliament on the second reading of the "Finance Act," and the various criticisms by journals throughout the whole of the Dominion, to change the views we expressed .when the Measure first reached our office. We described it as a surprisingly < well-thought out measure. The fact that all discussions have not resulted in amendment is conclusive proof of the correctness of our views, and immeasurably more important, it is a guarantee of a fairness that a few cavillers have not been able to impeach. We have to find the money; undeniably just regulations have been made, and it only remains for us to patriotically and good, na v ,tuTedly let the War Chest have every penny we ' can with liberal justness spare.