The Geraldine Guardian. "Fiat justitia ruat ccelum.” THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1883.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1112, 31 May 1883, Page 2

The Geraldine Guardian. "Fiat justitia ruat ccelum .” THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1883.

MAJOR ATKINSON’S SPEECH. The Honorable Major Atkinson raised an important point when addressing Ids constituents last Tuesday evening at Ha were, and ho discussed it after a fashion that no doubt satisfied himself, hut at the same time very much at variance with common sense. He is reported to hare said that Mr Montgomery argued that the public works had increased the value ot land—not the value of personal property—and that therefore land should pay a share of the burden ot taxation. Replying to this, Major Atkinson held that though land had increased in value to a large extent, personal property had increased enormously. Merchants had made fortunes, shopkeepers had grown rich, laborers had 'saved money and bought farms, and all classes had been enriched by the public works policy. That is all very well, and possibly true, but still tberejis a great difference between the landowner, and the other classes enumerated by the Colonial Treasurer, We will give an instance of this. In this district a certain gentleman bought land to the value of 1 about £14,000 before the railway was constructed, and we now learn that bis valuation under the Property Tax at the present day is £98,000. Now what has given that enormously increased value to that land. Have all the merchants, shopkeepers, laborers, lawyers, doctors, editors, and loafers in the district put together made £84,000 out of public works, like that one man has done ? Certainly not. And no one can deny that every penny of the increased value of that gentleman’s property is due to public works. To be sure the land has been broken up, and greatly i improved, but as a matter of fact this has not added to its value. Land in its maiden state will bring a higher price in this district than land which has been worked for the last ten or fifteen years, provided the quality and situation are equal. Therefore we hold that it was the public works which gave the estate referred to its increased value, and that had its owner kept hi? hands in bis pockets his property would still be just as valuable as it now is. Public works have increased the value of that estate by about £84 { 000, and Major Atkinson says that every man in the country has been equally benefited. Very possibly if we had been the owner of that estate we would agree with him, but as we are not we see things from a different point of view altogether. One thing we wish to point out. There is a great diffeience between property in land and any other kind of property. The greatest thinkers of the day hold that there should be no property in land, and we quite agree with them, but it is not our intention to discuss that question at present. Let us suppose that merchants, laborers, etc., had been enriched by the Public Works policy, and see if there is no difference between the wealth they have acquired and the wealth of the landowner. We have seen pretty plainly that had the landowner remained inactive —as many of his class do—had he been in the mines of Siberia, or any other part of the globe, his land would have been just as valuable, if not more so, than it is at present. Could merchants have become rich had they kept their hands in their pockets ? Could laborers have acquired farms had they not toiled from morning till night ? And Major Atkinson would hold that all classes derived equal benefit from the public works. But possibly we would all think similarly, if we belonged to his class. We do not, however, and perhaps this is what enables us to see the discrepancy. We should like very much to pursue the subject of the difference between property in land and other kinds of property further, but circumstances forbid us to do so at present. We think however that we have shown that the State has a claim on the land on account of the increased value the expenditure of public money has given it, and that in all fairness it ought to contribute to the payment of the interest ot that money. Instead of that, industry is taxed ; the very sources of wealth and greatness are made to pay for the increased value givm to land. This is false economy. It is not right, and what is not right can neither be wise nor expedient. If common sense could by any means obtain a hearing in our Legislature it would show that on the development of our industrial resources, our future greatness and prosperity as a nation must depend, and that to tax the springs of industry is a suicidal policy, The sooner the people open their eyes to these facts the sooner the evil will be remedied, but so long as our Parliament consists principally of large landowners we can expect no change.