The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1888. THE CAT OUT OF THE BIG.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1710, 13 March 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1888. THE CAT OUT OF THE BIG.

The Otago Daily Times has at last “ let the cat out of the bag.” Hitherto it has been a most stern opponent of a revision of the tariff, but now it

tacitly agrees that a change is necessary, urging as a reason “ that we are not in a position to stand any more direct taxation.” It says in effect “ the Property Tax must not be increased because it would fall heavily on men of property, hut Customs duties may be increased for revenue purposes.” It does not say on whom the increase in the Customs duties would fall, but as the burden of its song has always been that Protection meant “ taxing the many for the benefit of the few,” we must naturally conclude that it is the many who would feel the Customs Tax. We find therefore that the Otago Daily Times, the great champion of JFreetrade, does not scruple to tax the many for the benefit of the few who own property. Where now is its great sympathy for working men who it held would be ruined by the high prices they would have to pay if protective duties were put on ? What will farmers think of this, after the many occasions on which the Times told them protection would amount to a special tax on them ? But the chief thing which troubles the Times is on what articles the duties should be put. The Protection League has suggested that duties similar to those in force in Victoria should be adopted in this colony, so far as they were found applicable, but the Times has discovered that if this were done it would result in a loss of £613,111 to the revenue. This is a most extraordinary discovery. Hitherto the Times has gone into hysterics at the bare thought of Protection, becausa it held that it meant increasing the taxation of the people, now it has suddenly discovered that it would do exactly the reverse. It has proved most conclusively, according to its own peculiar logic, that it we adopt the Victorian Customs tariff, as suggested by the Protection League, we shall not pay much more than half the taxes we now pay through the Customs, and this is what has brought the salt tears to

eyes. It says that unless we get revenue through the Customs Tax, we must get it through tfie Property Tax, and property cannot stand any more taxation. That is the cause of its trouble, anxiety, and terrible anguish of heart: If we put on Protection, the people at large will not have to pay as much taxation as they do now, but the men of property must pay more. Serve them right if they do ; we cannot sympathise with them, because tfipy liave been frequently warned, but they haye pot heeded it. They have gone on borrowing for making railways, and have thrown every impe4went they could in the way of land settlement ans now if they have to atone for their sins tfyey have themselves to blame. However, we trust that now when tjie clouds are gathering thicker and thicker around them, and their great pilot points out the “breakers ahead,” they will accept a jyprd of consolation even from us V7,e jhjjtye held that Protection did not mean' taxation; we have also anticipated the ghastly spectre of diminished revenue, which

seems to have given the Otago Daily Times a fit of the cholera morbus, and have pointed out that it was a mythical creation of minds so darkened by sordid contemplation of present advantages that the future is as a sealed book to them. The Times tells us that it has come to the conclusion that Protection would result in a loss to the revenue by reading Hayter’s “ Victorian Year Book,” Mr Hayter points out that the Customs duties of Victoria comes only to a little over 10 per cent on the value of the imports, although such articles as are taxed pay a duty of 25 per cent. He explains this by saying that it is due to the fact that raw materials and many other articles are admitted free. It is also pointed out that the Customs duties of New Zealand vary from 18 to 20 per cent, on the value of our imports, although our nominal duty is 15 per cent. Thus Protection in Victoria means a tax of 10 per cent on the total value of imports; Preetrade in New Zealand means a tax of 20 per cent, and the Times argues that if we were to adopt the Victorian tariff we should lose half our revenue, and have to increase the Property Tax. The Times caters for the stupid party, and its stupidity is therefore pardonable. It evidently forgets that every brick that is made with which to build chimney stacks, every house and factory that is built, every ton of iron dug out of the earth, and every manufactured article, is so much created wealth; that this newlycreated wealth would be subject to the operations of the Property Tax, and that thus the increase in taxable property would lead to an increase of revenue. It ought also to remember that the revenue from railways, stamps, and all departments of the public would increase with commercial activity; that the population would increase, and that a thousand and one things would combine together to make good the imaginary deficit. But even if the Times could not see all this it ought to see at any rate that under the proposed duties Victoria is immensely prosperous, and has a very large surplus of stock every year. That one fact ascertained by years of experience demolishes completely all the stupid arguments of the Times, and it ought also open the eyes of wealthy men, but we are afraid that nothing will ever teach them sense, and that they will resist all change until they have driven the colony into the bankruptcy court. However, the times has “ let the cat out of the bag.” Protection means paying less taxation through the Customs, and therefore cannot be “ taxing the many for the benefit of the few.”

THE KUROW RUN. There has been t good deal of talk recently anent the Kurow ruo, and consequently a few particulars gathered from the Wanganui Herald may not be uninteresting. This is a run in the hands of the New Zealand and Austra'iao Land Company—the same. Company that owns the Levels. Mr Ballance when ha was Minister of Lands, visited the run, and came to the conclusion of cutting it up into small grazing runs and farms. He accordio s'y caused a notice to be given to the Company that the Government would require the run at the expiration of 12 months from date, and of course a storm arose immediately. The agen* of the Company went to Wellington during the sitting of Parliament, and entered upon a vigorous canvass of the members with a view of coeicing the Stout-Vogel Government to withdraw the notice to resume possession of the land, but he had all his aber for nothing. The Slout-Yogel Government refused to do it, but they were soon afterwards turned out of office, and in came the present team. The run had been surveyed by the previous Government, and the time arrived for cutting it up and setting the peop'e on it. The present Government, however, refused to carry out the arrangement, and the Wanganui Herald says that now it is very likely the Company will resort to gridironing the run by availing themselves of the Land Act of last sessiou to buy out the key to it. There is great excitement in Uamartt over it, and a monster petition has been got up, urging the Government to cut it up, but what the result will be is still doubtful. Now this is monstrous. Here is a Company whose freehold estate is immense, yet it wants to keep the leasehold as well, and to resist all attempts atland-settlement. We have hitherto resisted all proposals to burst up with taxation large landowners, but we are beginning to believe that there is no other way of dealing with them. They are neither fair nor reasonable. Their greed is fearful, and they use their power with shameless uascrupulousnese. It is hopeless to deal with them in a reasonable way, for they themselves are unreasonable. Their whole aim is to grab all, and consequently they must be met with vigorous opposition. It is simply monstrous that a company of foreigners, which has only agents and managers in the colony, should jje able to coerce the Government in this way, bat it is worse still that we have a Government so corrupt as to yield up the people’s rights in this way. We have ourselves to blame. We turned out theStout-Yogel Government and put in the present one. Why ? Just because large landowners, companies, and money-rings, whose grab-all propensities they wore resisting, told us they were extravagant. The Stout-Yegel Government were not extravagant. What wus wrong with them that they brought upon themselves' the illwill o£ the moneyrings, and thlis is a sample of it'. The people will yet wake up to the fearful mistake that was made last session.