A. E. G. RHODES AT TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2286, 28 November 1891, Page 2

A. E. G. RHODES AT TEMUKA.

Mr A. E. G. Rhodes, M.H.R. for Gladstone, addressed his constituents at Temuka in the Volunteer Hall on Thursday evening. There was a fair attendance. Mr James Blyth chairman of the Town Board occupied the chair, and in a few introductory remarks bespoke for Mr Rhodes the same patient hearing that it Avas their habit to accord him. Mr Rhodes could not alAvays be amongst them, but they found him ready at all times to attend to their requirements in both political and social ways, and they had never hesitated to make use of him. Mr Rhodes, who Avas greeted with applause on coming forward said : —Mr Chairman and Gentlemen, —It is about 12 months since I had the pleasure of addressing you in this hall just before the last general election. Since I have had the honor of a seat in Parliament I have never addressed my constituents at the close of a session for the purpose of giving a history of the events of that session as I am aware that most of you '

received great credit from Ministerial papers for doing the work of the Department without pay, but I strongly object to payments to either members or Ministers beyond the amounts authorised by Statute, and three years ago we cut down the number of paid Ministers to six, and the Government should have repealed that Act if they wanted to pay a seventh. Even three years ago when members’ and other salaries were being cut down I had grave doubts whether the Ministerial salaries should have beou cut down so low as £BOO, and house allowance of £2oo—(Hear, hear)—but if we are going to have the number of members limited to 74 that 5 paid Ministers in our House is sufficient, as as they have a great influence in the small House, but in any case the Government have no business to practically repeal the Act of 1887 by a simple vote brought down on the Supplementary Estimates on one of the last days of the session. So much for the expenditure from the consolidated revenue. I would like now to give a few figures as to the present position of our LOAN MONEY. The cash balance of Parts 1,2, and 3 of the Public Works fund on the 31st of March, 1891, was £718,09(1 Credit from released sinking funds £200,000 Probable recoveries during the year £14,000 Total available for appropriation on 31st March, 1891.. £932,096 Under the Appropriation Act the sum of £30,000 was transferred from the Consolidated fund to the Public W orks Fund ' ... £30,000 And the sum of £32,800 which is authorised to be spent by the Public Works Appropriation Act on making roads to open up lands is to to be paid for by money borrowed under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act Amendment Act £32,800 Grand total £994,896 If we now take the Public Works Appropriation Act we find how the Government propose dealing with this sum of £994,896. Out of Part 1 they appropriated for expenditure during the year £556,063, with liabilities at the end of the year... £667,743" Out of Part 2 they appropriated £197,631, with liabilities at the end of the year of ... £267.631 Unauthorised expenditure, year 1890-91 ... 7,097 £942,473 There is therefore at present a sum of £994,896 in the Public Works Fund, and we have appropriated £942,473 Leaving a balance of only ... £52,423 for appropriation next year. I see that the Premier has hypothecated from the Government Loans to Local Bodies a further sum of £3400 to provide for part of the liabilities, so that we may have £55,823 for future appropriation. This is taking for granted that the conversion of the loans is going to be a success, and that the Premier can supplement the Public Works Fund by £200,000 from that source. It seems to me very doubtful whether the conversion will be the success anticipated some months ago. I don’t think the public realise that even if the conversion is a success we will only have about £50,000 for public works next year, and that the conduct of the Government in spending so much of the Public Works Fund will necessitate a fresh loan next year. For some years the late Government had beeen reducing the expenditure of borrowed money, so as to make the loan money last as long as possible, and we find the present Ministry raising the expenditure from £335,151 to £753,696, and practically spending all the balance of loan money and a great part of the estimated receipts from the conversion at once. There is not time this evening to enumerate the many useless works the Government are pushing forward, such as the Thames-Te Aroha railway, and on another line doing a few miles at each end, instead of constructing a piece to be worked at one end. Canterbury practically gets no benefit from the increased expendiiture of borrowed money. It is just as well that the electors here should know that the Ministry are galloping towards a fresh loan, if not towards a deficit. THE LAND BILL took up a good part of the time of the Waste Lands Committee, and after veiy careful consideration it went through the House, and was, as you are aware, after a conference between the two Houses, eventually dropped. The points of disagreement between the two Houses were four: Firstly—The clause which gives the Minister power to declare on what system land should be thrown open for sale. Secondly—One man one run clause. Thirdly—The clause which kept back the title in the case of cash purchasers until some of the improvements had been done. Fourthly—Preventing the acquisition of freehold under the perpetual lease system. It was the general impression that a compromise could have been effected (if the Premier had not wanted a grievance against the Upper House) on the following basis : —Limiting the one run to country that would in the aggregate carry 20,000 sheep, and giving the perpetual leaseholder the option of whether he would have his present rights of obtaining the freehold, paying rent on a 5 per cent basis, or pay only on a 4 per cent basis and have no light to obtain his freehold. Personally I strongly supported the withholding of the title from cash purchasers until they had effected certain improvements, but where land is only put up on one system 1 would prefer that the Land Board should decide this in preference to the Ministry. The Bill which a very large number of my constituents were anxious to see passed was the LAND FOR SETTLEMENT BILL, and according to my promise last election I strongly advocated this measure in the House. I presented a petition from the Pleasant Point District, and urged the question on the Government in the House and out of it, and I was ably assisted by the two other members who have the honor to represent South Canterbury constituencies, Major Steward and Mr Hall-Jones. The Government V

take an intelligent interest in politics and that you are fairly conversant with what is done in Parliament. I have always preferred to speak on the eve of a new session, so as to be able to talk of the actual question likely to come before the House, to give the electors an opportunity of questioning me thereon, and to learn what were the actual wishes of the district. This year it may not be convenient for private reasons for me to speak on the eve of next session, but moreover the new scheme of taxation introduced by the Land and Income Assessment- Bill, 1891, effects such serious changes and is, to say the least of it, so difficult of comprehension that I decided to come amongst you when the assessors are in your midst, and do my best to explain the provisions of this new taxing Act. I should have come earlier, but I knew many of you would be very busy with the agricultural shows, and therefore I waited until the Timaru and . Christchurch Shows were over. When thinking over what subjects I should speak about there seemed to be so many that it is impossible in the short time at my disposal to speak fully on all. I will therefore go very shortly over the history of the present Parliament and a few Bills of last session, and speak at some length on .the Taxation Bill. You will remember that the result of the last election was the resignation of the Atkinsouian Ministry and the formation of the Ballance Ministry. The Government took nearly four months to prepare their policy, and even then .were not prepared to go into the real -tfbrk of the session at once. We certainly had the Financial Statement early, but the Land and Income Assessment Bill, and Public Works Statement were not ready. We had to wait a long time and some of the Bills, such as the Land and Income Tax Bill werevexy badly drafted when we did get them. The PRINCIPAL FEATURE OF THE SESSION was the crushing majorities the Government had in the House and on nearly all ; the committees, but I have no doubt there will be a good many seceeders next session. At an early stage of the session Mr Bryce was elected leader of , the i Opposition, and I worked with him generally, but of course the present opposition did not go in for obstructing all Government measures simply to throw discredit on the Government. The present Ministry when in opposition cut down salaries which they knew would have to be reinstated, and always obstructed work simply to throw discredit on the late Government, and we iind them reinstating the salaries immediately they get into Power. The opposition suffered a great loss when Mr Bryce resigned and I have not time to go. fully into the episode this evening. Moreover it is very difficult to put yourself in 1 the position of another man when that man’s honour is the question at stake. I was in the House mysef at the time and I am perfectly certain, as Major Stewart himself admits, that the Speaker never called on Mr Bryce to withdraw the words. It was only the Premier who did this. The Government and the huge majority of Government followers took the conduct of the Premier into their own hands for the moment and it was they and not the speaker who called on Mr Bryce to withdraw. I certainly think Mr Bryce should not have withdrawnany words at the dictation of the Premier who had no business to address him at all. AfterMr Bryce’s resignation Mr Rolleston was elected leader of the Opposition, as you are no doubt aware. [finance. I have usually spoken at some length on finance and perhaps wearied you with figures; this evening I shall not say very much about ordinary finance, because until the end of the present financial year we have not sufficient data to judge fairly of the present Ministers and of their actual administration. The Ministry were fortunate in inheriting a surplus of £143,965 15s 6d from the late Govern- 1 ment, although they had previously always refused to admit that there was any surplus. In his Financial Statement, although the Premier estimated his surplus at the end of the current year as £257,660 15s 6d, he proposed no relief of taxation except reduction of inland postage to a penny, estimated at £40,000, and a remission of duty on leases of Native land, estimated at £6OOO. I regret that the Government did not even give us the remission of postages during the current year. So practically, although there was a large surplus, we got no remission of taxation this year except £6OOO on the Native lease. The Opposition thought that if we were to have a remission of taxation there should be some remission on the necessaries of, life —tea duty, for instance. They moved in this direction in the House, but the Government party and their large majority objected to the remission of the tea duty. Personally I am in favor of reducing the inland postage to a penny if the finances will admit of it, and have always advocated the reduction of the postage duty. There is no doubt that the Ballance Government have increased the estimates both by an increase of salaries of Civil servants and other sums. The total increase is something pretty considerable —I should say over £100,000; Mr Hutchison stated in the House that the increase was £200,000, without extra interest—but the Premier says that there are a good many extraordinary expenses that wont occur again, and some amoun'-s which were really incurred by the former * administration ; but still we find the expenditure going up every year, and at least we should have expected that members who obtained office on the retrenchment roar, and who ruthlessly cut down salaries which they knew would have to be reinstated eventually, would hardly have had the face to reinstate so many of the decreases during their first year of office. As I said before, we really can’t tell till next March the extent of the present Government’s extravagance, but, judging from their four months’ travelling expenses during the last recess, namely, £697 19s 7d, a good deal of which was really incurred to help candidates who were fighting constituencies in their own interests, we may expect that their ordinary administration will be tinged with the same color. I understand the late Government previously only spent £125 in three months for travelling expenses. Another item of expenditure in the Supplementary. estimates that I took ; grave exception to, was the payment to the Hon. J. G. Ward of £4OO for the six 1 months he had been in office. Personally ' I have no objection to Mr Ward, who 1

did not push the Bill through our House until rather late in the session, and I regret to say that when it did go up to the Upper House it was thrown out. I can only say that I have no doubt our House will pass the Bill again next session, and the Upper House will, when they see the people of the country really wish it, give way. The only difficulty is that although the residents in Canterbury, North Otago, and a few other portions of the colony wish this experiment tried, in -other portions of the colony they have Crown land and are not at all anxious that private estates should be bought by the Crown. I supported the measure because I wanted to see the experiment tried, but there were some objectionable features in the measure. Firstly it gave’ the'Government power to borrow £50,000 from the Trust Account, viz., Public Trust Office, Government Insurance, Post Office Account, and Commissioners Public Debt Sinking Fund—or to give debentures to that account. I believe the Government could borrow cheaper in the London market than from the Trust Account, and I would prefer to see the Government do this. If private owners will take' debentures there is no objection to them. My next objection was that the rental was to be 5 per cent, with 1 per cent, sinking fund, really 6 per cent. As perpetual leaseholders of Crown land were only to be charged 4 per cent, by the proposed Laud Bill, it seemed unfair to charge these men 6 per cent. I quite admit the fairness of charging 5 per cent.: if the Government conld not finance any cheaper, but in all fairness, if 1 per cent, sinking fund is charged the land should belong to the tenant when the sinking fund pays off the capital value. The five per cent, interest was to be on . the total original cost of land,' added to cost of survey, roadmaking and estimated cost of administration. In fact, you pay 5 per cent, on every possible sum the Government might spend in administering the transaction, and you then have to pay another 1 per cent., which would be clear profit! to the other taxpayers of the colony iv This would make the rent so high that the experiment would run a great risk of being unsuccessful. Of course a tenant would probably be only too glad to play 1 per cent towards buying the freehold forhimself. But instead of this theßill provided that these lands should only be disposed of under the pei’petual leasehold system, and this of course meant under the new Land Act without right of eventually obtaining freehold. I was opposed to this, but, of course, not being able to amend the Bill as I wished I supported it as a whole. Another Bill which was asked for by the South Canterbury constituencies was the EDUCATION ENDOWMENT AND RESERVE EXCHANGE BILL. You know my views are very strong that it would be a'fatal error to take away auy endowments that have been set apart for higher education .in this and some other Provinces by the early settlers. The endowments give an opportunity to young persons of small means getting a higher education, which advantage they could , not obtain unless we had’ endowed educational establishments. The School Commissioners in Canterbury are doing a great deal in the way of subdividing any farms that fall into their, hands. I will give you a few figures showing what they have done lately:—ln 1887, 6886 acres dealt with, 4 tenants previously, relet to 24 tenants, average acreage 222 ; in 1888, 3321 acres dealt with, 6 tenants ’ previously, relet to 15 tenants, average acreage 166; in 1889, 4408 acres, dealt with, 5 tenants previously, relet to. 22 tenants, average acreage 169. This shows that the School Commissioners are doing a good deal in the way of promoting closer settlement, but if the land is require! for even closer settlement I hold it is better for the trustees to take cash or other lands not required for close settlement producing as good an income. I therefore supported this Bill, which empowers the Govex-mneut to exchange lands with the Educational Endowment Trustee, but it can only be done with the consent of the trustee. SMALL JBlXiDf, Latt year a good many questions were asked re small birds’ nuisance, and at the commencement of the short session I asked the Government to introduce legislation on this subject, and last session extended powers for dealing with the nuisance were given to local bodies; and if the local bodies fail, neglect, or refuse to carry the Act into effect the Minister of Lands, after receiving a report from the Inspector of Stock, can put the Act in force. ■' GOVERNMENT LOANS TO LOCAL BODIES. Last election I advocated that fox 1 the pi’esent the only legitimate objects of the expenditure of borrowed money is the settling people on the land, and I am quire prepared to support the expenditure of borrowed money for making suitable land in the North Island available for settlement, and for an experiment of buying private land in the South Island for small settlement purposes, but I was astonished when the Government introduced the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act Amendment, and I at once raised the strongest opposition to it that I could. I can’t understand how a democx’atic House can hand over £50,009 a year to the Miniater of Lauds to spend as he pleases without havihg to obtain the previous authority of the House. You can understand what an enormous power it would give a Minister at a by-election. He could go round and promise all sorts of roads and bridges if they would retxxrn a Ministerial candidate. It seems to- me a most retrograde step to take away from the House the power of allocating how every penny of the public funds should be spent, and I think that full particulars should be supplied to the House before a penny should be spent. Although the Minister had four months to prepare his estimates, he made the excuse that he had not time to settle what roads should be , made. We then asked the House to limit the authority to spend £50,00Q, to one year, but the Hquse refused tp.flp this, and the Minister can spend £5.0,000 every year out of the money authorised to bp borrowed under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act 1886. The power of helping local bodies by loans will be reduced by £50,000 a year, and the Minister of Lands for the time being, whether he happens to be of the same political opinion as yourself or the converse, will have what I consider undesirable power. The Government introduced a Bill raising

THE HONORARIUM to £2O a month, and, of course, as I told you last election, I opposed the honorarium being raised over £l5O. When the country can afford it, I have no objection to the payment of members being raised, but I think it very inadvisable to do so while the civil servants are being so hardly dealt with as they have during the last few years. (Applause.) Thetf were some very useful legal legislation last session, such as the Trustee Act, /Partnership Act, etc., but I don’t suppose they are of very great interest to tlie' majority of you present tonight. Without doubt the most important Act of the session was THE LAND AND INCOME TAX All taxation is disagreeable, but, as one who supported the Property Tax in preference to a Land and Income Tax last election, I must acknowledge that the country pronounced against the Property Tax, and I am quite convinced that when they really understand the proposed new system that they will also pronounce agaihst that. I believe the principal cause of the unpopularity of the Property Tax' was the uneven valuations, but the valuations. will be much more difficult under the new system, and unless a very large amount of money is spent in obtain- ■ Valuations we will have just the same difficulty as before. It will be almost impossible for a valuator to judge how milch has been spent in draining land, taking timber out of swamps, cutting up stumps, &c. I know swamp land in Canterbury on which £8 an acre has been spent in taking out sunken timber. It will be difficnlt to convice the valuator of this, and there is bound tobe great dissatisfaction about the valuation of improvements. A new principle of the Bill is the graduated taxation. The Premier in his Financial Statement defended the graduation on the plea that it would make everybody pay according to their wealth, I have always told you that I would oppose graduated taxation, but if it is considered fair, I am perfectly willing to bear my share, but the Act only provides for graduated taxation as land is concerned, and the graduation is practically " the banishment of the “social pests.” If the time has arrived for bursting up large holdings, let us do so in an open (.straightforward manner, and not punish the just and the unjust through the means - of the Taxation BiU. We should have an enquiry into the use the large holders are making of their properties, and not burst up those who are employing large amounts of labor in comparison to their holdings. In case of large holdings that are blocking . settlement, we shouln either buy them Back at a fair price from the owners or call upon the holders to cut up or work them. The graduated taxation will press very heavily on encumbered large holders, as they have to pay the graduation on their mortgages, so that even as far as landowners are concerned it can’t be defended on the principle that each is < paying according to his ability, and it ‘ seems to me that taxation should be used for the purpose of collecting revenue, and . not as an instrument for punishment. As the Premier wished to pass the Bill . no improvements for draining land, clearing from timber, scrub, or fern, or , laying down in pasture, could be allowed for if they had been made over 10 years. This was a most unfair proposal for the old-settled districts, such as the large portion of Canterbury, where the settlers would not have been able to deduct their ( improvements. I am glad to say that we C were able to amend the Bill so that the 1 definition now includes all improvements, the benefit of which is unexhausted at the time of the valuation. As far as the ordinary tax on land is concerned, I am glad to say that as it stands at present the small farmer will pay less than he does under the Property Tax; in fact, the holders of many fairly large estates will pay less taxation than at present. You are able to deduct improvements up to the . value of £3OOO and all your registered mortgages, and you don’t pay on your stock, and very small farmers can deduct five hundred pounds. Many large landowners with as much as £30,000 ■vyqrth of land will pay less taxation under the new system. A fair instance is that of an owner whose estate is worth £20,000 and unincumbered; the improvements would be worth at least £SOOO, and he would probably have £SOOO worth of stock, furniture, agricultural machinery and plant, grain and produce held, and debts due to him. Under the Property sPp: :; fio would pay £IOO, viz.: Id in the £ ' finj-fahSe of land and stock, &c., £25,000, less £SOO exemption. Under the new system he would pay Id in the £ on the f iivalue of the land, less £3OOO for improvements, viz., £7O 16s 8d ; a farthing in the £graduation on £15,000, £1512s 6d, equal in all to £B6 9s 2d, being £l3 10s lOd less 4 than under the old system. He, pays nothing on his stock, &c. Oxle great objection to the Bill is the ■ unfair system introduced of taxing mortI contended that if it is right to • tax all registered mortgages at a penny in the poundj whether the money actually belonged to the mortgagee or whether it did not, everyone should be placed on the s same footing. But what did the Premier do I He has given most unfair concessions to the banks and certain locallyregistered companies. We understood in the House that the companies only included bnilding societies, but it is difficult to understand what the following definition means “ Locally registered ' companies whose sole or principal business is\the business of a loan, building, and investment company.” I think it is very doubtful what this definition means; -although intended to exempt only building societies it may include most of the ■ locally registered companies, such, for instance, as the Mercantile Finance Go. ■ arid the N.Z. Loan and Mercantile Co. ■ I fail to see why such companies as these should be put in a better position than private individuals or foreign registered companies. The banks and those pri- ' vileged companies instead of paying the mortgage tax on the capital value of the “ money invested are to pay an income tax ■of Is and Is 6d respectively on their income, but as regards the building companies it seems doubtful whether it does |jot mean Is 6d on the interest they "receive frpm the whole of their mort- > gages. I am certain that if tlie Bill is carried out in its entirety no private per- ’• son or non-privileged company can compete with these institutions in lending ' borrowed money on mortgage. To show what Mr Ballance’s idea is, this was understood to mean fair taxation. I will take for example four institutions in one street borrowing money or lending it

out on registered mortgages, and show what they pay on this class of their business. 1 think that probably the banks or other companies don’t make a profit of more than £l. after paying all expenses of management and interest on deposits on every £IOO they receive on deposit. If this is a correct assumption we find (1) the bank, who presumably were able to put most pressure on the Ministry, only pay one shilling on every £IOO dealt with in this manner, or Is on its £1 profits. (2) The building societies also came forward and put pressure on the Government. Their taxation is not to exceed Is 6d on their income, and, as I have said, a certain number of other local companies will probably share in this unfair advantage, but, as I have also stated, it is doubtful what the expression “ income from mortgages ” means, but the companies think it means Is 6d on the £1 net profit. (3) An ordinary loan company or private individual would have to pay Id in the £ on the capital value of the mortgages, or 8s 4d Income Tax on his £1 profit. (4) We now come to the companies, such as the Trust and Loan Co., Northern Investment Co., and many others who trade principally with money borrowed on debentures in England. These will pay a penny in the pound mortgage tax and the debenture tax, which has been understood throughout the colony to be one penny in the pound, the same as the other mortgage tax, or twopence in the pound on the capital value of the debentures invested, equal to 10s 8d on their pound profit. Personally I think the debenture tax is an income tax, and will, therefore, vary with the rate of interest the company is paying the debenture-holder. On a 4J per cent, debenture the tax will probably be 4s 6d on the £IOO debenture. If this is the correct reading the company will pay 12s lOd, and not 16s Bd, on their one pound profit. 1 think you will admit with me when these companies pay about 4J per cent, for their money in England, and let it out here at 6 per cent., they certainly don’t make more than a pound clear profit after paying all expenses, and the new taxation means taking-;..about 12s lOd or 16s 8d out of every pound profit on this portion of their business. The officers of several companies have supplied me with figures as to what they expect to pay. One company with only £IOO,OOO of their own capital and a large amount of debenture money have been paying £2402 7s under the present property tax, and they now expect to pay £3879 11s 6d, or 4 per cent, on their own paid-up capital. It was stated in the House there was some £14,000,000 of foreign debenture money invested in the colony, and I have always supported that the person trading with that money in the colony should pay property tax of a penny in the pound on it, because companies should have no exemption on account of liabilities to depositors unless the depositors pay the property tax, but ■ it is absolutely monstrous to charge the property tax of one penny in the £ on this money in addition to the debenture tax, and say that the debenture-holder in England must pay the latter. Of course, the English Courts will take no notice of our statutes, and when the company is sued in the London Court it will have to pay up the full amount of the interest due on the debentures. It is difficult to say how much of this 14 million is invested on registered mortgages in the colony, and some of it may even be invested in Australia. I am certain the Government will find it necessary to take , off this double taxation, and if there is anything like fourteen millions, it would mean a large deficiency on their estimated proceeds from the new tax. It is said that the companies won’t withdraw their money, but if we look at the facts, we will see that they probably will do so for the following reasons : —Shareholders’ capital is, comparatively speaking, small in most of the companies, and as they will have to pay the whole of the taxation and undertake the whole risk, we can easily see that their double taxation will absorb such a large proportion of their profits that it will no longer pay them to trade here with debenture money, and they must, therefore call up their mortgages and pay off the debenture money, even if they do not entirely withdraw from business. If the taxation is not altered the weaker companies will be crushed out, .and the stronger companies will raise the rates of interest to recoup their losses. If the rates of interest are raised the taxation will eventually fall on the local borrower. INCOME TAX. I have always opposed an Income Tax, as under the Property Tax all incomes derived from property were fully taxed; while incomes from personal exertion were either spent in acquisition of jrroperty, which was at once taxed, or in the purchase of articles which had already paid heavy taxation through the Customs. The Property Tax being abolished an Income Tax is practically a necessity. But I can see no reason why incomes from trade should be taxed heavier than professional incomes, as proposed in the Financial Statement. As most of you are aware the great majority of traders trade either wholly or largely on borrowed capital, and have no advantage over professional men in this respect. The trader lias one advantage over the landowner, in that he can, for Income Tax; purposes, debit the whole of the interest he pays for the borrowed capital he is trading with, and the landowner can only debit registered mortgages. I was astonished that the large majority supporting the Government should be willing to keep on increasing the power of the Ministers. I give a few instances of how the powers of the Ministry were proposed to be inscreased during last session.. (1) In the Legislative Council Bill, the appointment being limited for seven years and still remaining a nominated chamber gives the Ministry great power I over the Upper House in future. I myself would prefer to see the Legislative Council elected direct by the people. (Applause.) (2) Government Loans to Local Bodies gave the Minister of L<ands £50,000 a year to finance witlp (3) Payment of extra Minister. (4) Powers in the Land Bill giving power tq the Minister instead of the Land Board. (5) Proposal to pay members pf the Hpitse for >vork dpne on commissions and aptual payment of exmembers within a year of their leaving the House. (G) The power of assessing the Income Tax to shipping companies, or to the owners or charterer of shipping. It is quite possible that a Ministry whose members might be interested in Shipping would have all sorts of tilings said about

1 them when assessing the income of vesseh chartered by one of their number. It appears to me that we have no business to give the Ministry power to say how they will tax certain interests as they please. (Applause). (7) In the Mines Act there was i a fair proposal to take contributions from mine owners for a relief fund, but even here the Ministry wanted patronage and proposed that the Ministers and the Pnblis Trustee should even administer this relief fund. lam glad to say that the Act was altered so as to give the administration to the Miners Association where there is one. Although a good deal of unnecessary harm has been inflicted on the country by the taxation proposals of the Government, I am thankful to say that there is every prospect of a good season and fair prices, and the Government were so well aware of the many weaknesses of their Taxation Bill, that they fortunately arranged that it should not come into force for eighteen mouths, and I have no doubt that if we are not strong enough to turn them out of office we will be able to get many objectionable features of the Bill amended, although 1 think that the present House is determined to have the graduated tax as far as land is concerned. lam sorry to say that the Geraldine electorate is again cut to pieces. Personally, I think it a very bad thing that the boundaries of constituencies should be constantly altered, as at present, and I think that in arranging constituencies, local interests should be considered quite as much as arranging on a purely population basis. (Applause). Mr Rhodes concluded by thanking those present for the attentive hearing given him, and sat down amidst applause. QUESTIONS. The chairman then invited questions upon points upon which information was desired. Replying to Mr G. Edgeler, Mr Rhodes said that some three years ago he had requested the postal;authorities to arrange if possible for a daily delivery of /letters in Arowhenua. He would be happy to make enquiries with the view of arranging for the establishment of a box at, and delivery from, Mr Prattley’s store. Replying to Mr J Daly, he said he did not think the Postmaster-General would shift the General Post Office to Arowhenua. Replying to the same: Had always thought that a person owning over £SOO of property was entitled to pay some tax, but with regard to the exemption of £3OOO he considered it only fair if the towns were to have large exemptions that farmers should also be relieved. For example, a man lending £3OOO on a farm would only have £SOO exemption and would pay £lO 8s 4d tax, because he was helping the land owner, but if he lent the £3OOO to a bank or manufacturing company he wouid probably get £l5O interest for it, or if on bills of sale nearer £3OO, yet in both cases he would be exempt from taxation. Replying to Mr H. Oldfield; The deferred payment holder would only pay on his interest on the land. The leaseholders would have a difficulty in assessing their interest in land which would be the value of the unexpired lease. A run holder in addition to paying the ordinary assessment would have to pay an income tax as well. Replying to Mr Twomey : At present Property Tax is paid on debenture money by the companies. He was in favour of all debenture money paying the same taxation as local money. At present the company should pay on all their invested money less local liabilities. He was in favour of the company paying on foreign liabilities, but he objected to their paying this in the same shape of a tax on their assets and having to pay in addition this the Debenture Tax. The Act allows them to deduct the debenture tax from the debenture-holder when paying their interest, but of course the company could not really do as the debenture holder would probably sue the company in London and recover the full amount of interest due on the money being payable in England. English Courts would not admit New Zealand statutes. Supposing such a course to be pursued a double tax would be paid. If the debenture holder allowed the tax to be deducted, well and good, but he scarcely thought it likely. Mr E. Lee asked if Mr Rhodes would use his best endeavours to have the laws amended with regard to sheep stealing. Although there were numerous cases yet the charges were never brought home to the accused parties. He knew of a case where an owner saw some fifty of hie stolen sheep sold in a public yard, and because of the risk and cost of a prosecution he thought it better to submit to the loss. He thought the Government should take it up.—Mr Rhodes said he had done his best to have the matter brought throughHe had taken charge of a Bill originating in the Upper House, and Mr McKenzie had promised to give the subject full conversation during the recess. Mr Lee would also like to know if the official assignees were required to find secuiity for the handling of the public money. The local bodies were bound to do so, and the assignees handled a great deal more than any public body. There had been several cases of misappropriations and he referred to one in Timaru, of which he was surprised. Mr Rhodes had taken no notice in the House.—Mr Rhodes said that at that time the late Mr Turnbull represented Timaru and he had though it better to leave the matter in his hands. It would, of course, have been compent for anyone to move in the matter, but he never cared to interfere in a matter affecting another member’s district. *These were all the questions, and Mr. Alex. Frew then moved a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Rhodes for his interesting address. MrWaddel seconded the motion, which was carried in the usual way. Mr Rhodes having ipovad a vote of thanks to the chair,' the meeting terpiinatecb

Holloway's Ointment and Pills.— Coughs and influenza. —The soothing properties of these medicaments render them well worthy of trial in all discuses of the respiratory organs. In common colds uind influenza the Pills taken internally and the ointment rubbed over the chest and throat, are exceedingly efficacious. When influenza is epidemic, this treatment is the easiest, safest and surest. Holloway’s Pills purify the blood, remove all obstacles to its free circulation through the lungs, relieve the over-gorged air tubes, and render respiration free, without reducing the strength irritating the nerves, or depressing the spirit; such are the ready means of escaping from suffering when afflicted with colds, coughs, bronchitis, and other chest complaints, by which the health of so many is seriously and permanently injured in most countries.