The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1884. THE TIMARU HERALD ON ABSENTEES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1168, 22 April 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1884. THE TIMARU HERALD ON ABSENTEES.

The following extract from the Herald’s criticism of Mr Montgomery’s speech is well worth reading :—“ The weakest part of Mr Montgomery’s speech, the part which once more betrays his radical failing as a leader, and which virtually destroys the success of an otherwise creditable effort, is his claptrap appeal to the worst passions of the least intelligent section of the community, in his proposal to levy a special poll tax on absentee proprietors ot land. It he is in earnest in that proposal, then he is clearly unfit to be entrusted with the guidance of the public policy. If he is not in earnest—and we are convinced that he is not—then he is simply misleading the public and sacrificing his own principles and those of the more sober-minded of his party, in order to catch the thoughtless* plaudits of the party of misrule. . . . He knows perfectly well that the difficulties of merely framing such a measure would be enormous, and that if such a measure were carried into law, it would not only fatally derange the internal monetary affairs of the country, and shake the security of all property, but also destroy the external credit of the country, both public and private, and entail on the colonists losses and injuries a thousand times more injurious than the worst they at present suffer from land monopoly or absenteeism.” How any one can have the impudent audacity to back up absenteeism in language so violent is beyond our comprehension. We did not think there was otm in New Zealand who could express himself in this strain, except perhaps some parasite who derived his subsistence from absenteeism. Mark the language. To say that absentees should contribute to taxation is characterisod by the Herald as a “ claptrap appeal to the worst passions of the least intelligent section,” etc., and further on, it is done “ to catch the thoughtless plaudits of the party of misrule,” In reply to this we may say that William Ewart Gladstone, Herbert Gladstone, Herbert Spencer, John Morley, and other eminent men have characterised Irish absentee landlords as ruinous to that country, while Henry George has denounced American absenteeism in the most forcible language. If absentee landowners are bad tor Ireland they must be bad for New Zealand, and the men who condemn the one would condemn the other. Yet these men are not the least intelligent, and tliey do not belong to the party of misrule. Sir George Grey is not a man that lacks intelligence, and he is in favor of compelling absentees to contribute more to the revenue than they do. Each of the great men we have named have a world-wide reputation, their opinions are quoted in every pamphlet and paper one can take up, yet the Herald wants its readers to think only the least intelligent and the thoughtless are in favor of exacting from absentees further contributions to the revenue. But why need we quote authorities. Cannot common sense show any man that the suggestion is sound. For instance, let us suppose that Messrs Jones and Smith own 1000 acres each, Mr Jones lives on his land ; he produces a large quantity of wheat and oats each year and employs a good many hands in its cultivation. He contributes to the customs, to the post office, to the telegraph office, to the railway, and in fact pays revenue in almost every conceivable way. Mr Smith lives in England, never tills an acre of his land, he employs only a man or two, and never contributes anything whatsoever to the revenue with the exception of whst he pays for the transport of his few bales of wool to the nearest port. Mr Jones spend? -all hi? money in sho I

colony, Mr Smith spends it in England. The one cannot send a letter to a friend without swelling the treasury by the value of the stamp, neither can he travel on the railway without helping to make it pay. The other impoverishes the colony by taking his money away and doing nothing for it. Is it fair or just that he should be allowed to do so without contributing a fair share to the Government of the country ? Hia property is protected, all his interests are taken care of, but he gives no adequate return for it. Mr Jones contributes about four times as much to the revenue in direct and indirect taxation as he does, yet the Herald thinks it would be misrule to call on him to pay any more. “Todo so would fatally derange monetary affairs, shake the security of property, and destroy external credit.” Very fine indeed, but we should like to know how. Supposing this tax were placed on the b 40,000 acres owned by the N,Z. and A. Land Company what would be the result. Simply that this land would be cut up into, perhaps, 1000 farms, that they would have to be sold at a reasonable rate, that 1000 farm houses with six or eight persons in each would rise up, that the railway returns, the revenue from the customs, the post and telegraph offices, etc., would be greatly augmented. Jdow would this destroy our credit ? We are inclined to think that the English money-lender would rather invest his money on the security of the revenue to be got from 1000 farmers producing annually 2000 bushels of grain each, than if the same land were in the hands of a company producing nothing but wool. It is nothing more or less than an impudent attempt to throw dust in people’s eyes to say that to tax these people would ruin our credit. We shall return to this subject again.