CURRENT TOPICS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 201, 3 December 1910, Page 4

CURRENT TOPICS.

IS CAPITAL AFRAID? People who have resided many years in New Zealand will read \vitH an indulgent smile the melancholy predictions of the London Economist with regard to the Australian land tax (says the Wellington Times). Investors in land companies operating in the Commonwealth, we are told, have "had their faith a little sliak-. en," and it is suggested that the land tax will restrict new enterprise," though its effect on capital already invested "remains to be seen" Mr. David Murray, chairman of the New Zealand and Australian; Land Company, is drawn im to support the opinion that the new taxation will result in the withdrawal of i capital. It is nearly twenty years since a graduated land tax was instituted in this country. Even-body knows how capital was going to be driven from New Zealand; how confidence would be shaken, the well springs of development, and consequently of employment, dried up; and how this legislation would generally bring disaster. Everybody knows, two, that the very men who then, and on the various occasions when the schedule was HulwcijtH'nlly increased, cried "Ruination!" Imve lived to pile up substantial fortune*. The "land companies" referred to i>v th» Economist are money-lending concerns which no doubt find a profitable clientele among tho owners of wide areas of territory in Australia. Through 'llie process of foreclosure such companies are probably in a measure owners of land in Australia, and are to that extent interested in the country's welfare, lint, broadly speaking, they are absentees lit. ing on those who occupy and work the land, and their chief purpose is not to'

prevent the "withdrawal of capital," but rather to themselves withdraw as much cash as possible from the Common wraith to fill their own pockets. Putting that aspect of the matter aside, however, we may be permitted to ask what "new enterprise" is the graduated land tax in Australia going to restrict? Certainly not tihe enterprise of land distribution, which is the best undertaking Australia devote its attention to. To. say that this taxation is "class legislation" and that it is "discriminating,'' is merely to repeat terms that have become wearisome by their futility when applied as I the Economist applies them. Almost | all legislation is "class legislation," and every law on tihe Statute Book that has the slightest guiding principle or element of real statesmanship to recommend it is "discriminating." The questions for Australia to consider—or we should say the questions she has considered—are not how the foreign moneylender would prefer >tihe' Commonwealth to arrange its affairs, nor how even the inflow or outgo of capital may be affected, but how far this tax may bring about better distribution of the land, and how such closer settlement is going to contribute towards the permanent welfare of the people and prosperity of the country. Australia has an area of nearly three million, square miles and a population of four and a-quarter millions. The Federal and State Governments are endeavoring to attract white people from the otter side of the world, and shipping companies are being induced to reduce passenger rates and provide increased accommodation to ca-rry people across the seas to become Australians. How is this policy to have any hope of success unless the Commonwealth ensures newcomers fair opportunities to occupy the land? The land tax is the key with which the Government hopes to unlock the vast territories. Those persons who are determined to continue their bold on great estates will have to pay, for the privilege. That "is all. For the few persons abroad who, scared by the Economist, may "have their faith a little shaken," thousands of good Australians will be established on selections, and will contribute to the upkeep, the defence and the development of a continent. This settlement will give more, mot less, employment for capital. VACCINATION. New Zealand has had no chance of demonstrating whether vaccination gives immunity from smallpox, because smallpox has not visited New Zealand. There certainly was one suspected case ten years ago, and wholesale vaccination resulted. The Chief Health Officer has lately pointed out that the compulsory vaccination law is more honored in th>; breach than the observance. Apparently the majority of people who are warned by the State to observe the law take no notice of _ the warning, and the State does not insist. Therefore the machinery devised for the alleged prevention of smallpox is ineffective, useless and farcical. If the law remains inoperative it should be wiped out. One thing seems certain. Even though New Zealand were visited by smallpox, adults who had been vaccinated in their infancy would not be. immuner If vaccination gave immunity, it would apparently ,be necessary to again infect with vaccina every person who had not been vaccinated during recent years. A smallpox scare would send 1 thousands of people rushing to the doc- [ tors. There have been no reasonably recent outbreaks of smallpox from which data as to the effectiveness or otherwise of •vaccination can be obtained, and this being so there is no likelihood that belief in its" effectiveness will spread. The anti-vaccinationist cannot be easily persuaded that infection with the disease of one of> the lower animals is physically good for child or adult. He knows, of course, that the dangers of the barbarous old-time "arm-to-arm" vaccination is done away with, but often quotes instances emphasising his belief that even under modern methods vaccination is not an unmixed blessing. One may be sure that the parent who is brought into contact with any physical infirmity attributed to vaccination is not likely to be a friend of the compulsory or any other system.