MR F. A. WHITAKER AT HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XIII, Issue 1123, 4 September 1879, Page 2

MR F. A. WHITAKER AT HAMILTON.

The Courthouse "was crowded, on Monday night last, to heir Mr F. A. Whitaker. Mr Albert Potter was voted to the chair, and having opened the meeting, Mr Whitaker, with a few introductory remarks as to the nature of the opposition which was being offered to his candidature, proceeded to say : — When I came hef ore you last year, I engaged the services of a first-class reporter (Mr Drake, of the ' Hansard ' staff), and so I have here the report of my address at Te Awamutu, which I considered the most important one of that campaign, as Te Awamutu was the enemies' camp. What my views were then, they are now. Last year I made use of these words : — But politics are m a state of transition, and my opinion is, that the outcome will be the setting up of two great constitutional parties. We shall find that oat of all this political upheaving there will come two political parties, distinctly defined as the Liberal and Conservative parties. I wish to state to you at once that my instincts are, and always have been, Liberal, and Avhen that time comes I shall be found always on the side of Liberalism and progress." I have not gone back from my views. They were my views ten years ago ; then I came to the same conclusion, and if you ask me ten years hence, I shall give you the same answer. Having now cleared the way, I will give you my views on the public policy. There are four plans which represent the main points of any platform necessary to be effected m the legislature. There is first a change to be made m the incidenc-3 of Taxation, Manhood Suffrage, Triennial Parliaments, and Representation according to Population. First m regard to the incidence of taxation, which was not, however, brought out m the Governor's speech ; nevertheless, it is averyimportantquestion. Now, we ha ye beei\ borrowing no less than twenty-three millions of money. Most of this has been spent on public works, which considerably enhance the value of property. Railways, roads, bridges, and other public works, render more valuable the property m the district m which they are made. Now, the interest on this borrowed money has been paid out of the consolidated revenue, which is made up from the customs duties. Every man who eats and drinks, and puts clothes on his back, contributes something towards it. Now, is it not just that those who receive most benefit from the works upon which the public money has been expended, should bear the greatest share of the burden ? As it is no w, men, whose properties have increased 100, aye, 200 per cent., pay no more than the man who has no property. I believe a Land Tax is very good, but a Land Tax ought not to be considered a financial measure. It can never be regarded as a measure to relieve the burden of taxation from pressing two heavily on the poor man. I said last year — " I have shown you how a Land Tax would not relieve the burdens of the people. It would not yield more than £70,000 at the outside ; the cost of collection would be great, and the gradually growmg necessities of the colony would probably absorb the balance. There would be very little left to the credit of the Consolidated Fund, and the decrease m the duties upon the necessaries of life would be almost imperceptible. But there is another way m which we can assist this question, and that is by associating with the Land Tax a Property and income Tax. Now, it is perfectly certain that if a man has a house, store, or warehouse m the town, his property is just as much improved by the expenditure of this public money, as that of the man who has a farm of 1000 acres ; and there is no reason, that I can see, Avhy both properties, having increased m the same ratio, should not be taxed m the same ratio. As to the Income tax, 1 think we all agree that there are absentees m England, drawing immense revenues from this colony, who do not even contribute the little that those rich m°n do who live m the colony, and consume dutiable goods. Those absentees oontribute absolutely nothing through the customs, and yet i draw immense incomes from shares m i companies, leases, <S"c. They are the kind of people who should pay. I could name dozens of persons living m Euglaad, and drawing incomes from the colony, who do not pay sixpence towards keeping those properties up. We know that the possession of pi'operty is merely a compact between the people — that one man gets possession of a certain piece of land or certain property, and holds it by virtue of the strength of the whole. Therefore, we are absolutely holding the property of the absentees, and rendering it valuable by the expenditure of our money, while they do not pay a single sixpence towards the costs of the establishments necessary to keep tbeir property safe. That is clearly a monstrous thing — everybody can see it. It is only fair that these persons should contribute lanrely towards the ex.penses of the State m which their property is situated." But wo have not done with Uw facidejjoci of taxation, J

prophesied that the Land Tax would not be si financial success. In England, the revenue from tho Land Tax is only a million of money. In Victoria, it costs £30,000 or £40,000 a year to collect. Tho small sum realised will be swallowed up m the receiving- of such revenue. I, therefore, held that view, that to ease the customs revenue something must be done. I would advocate a general Property Tmx. There will bo a general deficiency of about £100,000, from tho falling off m the land revenue. As the land is getting sold, we must do something to raiso the money to meet the deficiency. I would advocate a Property Tax. A man should pay m proportion to his property. Now m America there is such a tax. The value of property is estimated, and then five per cent is allowed for profits, and on this a tax is levied. By this means an equitable tax may be levied, and the burden of taxation relieved by the joint efforts of every member of the community. Before I leave this question I will just refer to the remarks of one of the gentlemen who arc opposing me. He said he would be m favor of taxing improvements. He was speaking with regard to the Land Tax. He was wrong, and I will show you'. this argument and its fallacy. He said that if a man has £500 m. the bank, he should be taxed, when it is put upon tho land it is £500 still and shonld also be taxed. Ndw when a man has £500 m the bank, he can at a moments notice send it out of the colony — to Sydney, San Francisco, London or { Paris and where he likes by a stroke of his pen ; but when he puts it upon the I land m the shape of improvements, he can no longer put it m his pocket and carry it away with him. The Land Tax I regard as a political measure t© keep capitalists from acquiring large blocks of land for speculative purposes, and so I am m favor of the £500 exemption. Ido not think that the poor struggling man whoso property is not worth more than £500 should' pay a Laud xax. (Applause.) The next thing I shall notice is, Triennial Parliaments. I have only to say a few words upon it, as all the arguments m its favor lie ma nutshell. The population of the country is increasing by thousands yearly, and with an increasing ratio. It is hardly fair that these men should have no voice m the Government of the country for five years. These men come inta the country, and pay their taxes, but, for five years, they have no voice m the Government ; of course, during that time, single seats become vacant, but that is only occasionally, and does not affect the i principle of the thing. It is exactly the same thing, m principle, as that which severed the United States from the British Crown, when the tea was thrown into Boston harbour. Triennial Parliaments will give an opportunity for the new population to take their part m& the representation of the people m the Government. It has, he said, as an argument against Triennial Parliaments, that it will be an increased cost to the colony, and that more public money will be squandered m the elections, but I think the other side of the question quite outweighs this. (Applause.) I will next speak of manhood suffrage. The term is m everybodys mouth, and has bscome quite a slang phrase. Now, manhood suffrage is not universal suffrage. That would give the right of voting to the ladies. Now, I have very great confidence m the ladies, but I think that, before we can allow them a voice m the Government, they must be politically educated. Just picture to yourselves what the state of affairs would be, if ladies had a vote now. We should have the husband against the wife, and the father against the daughter. We should have the daughter saying to the father, who had declared for Cunningham : " I am going to vote for Whitaker." (I know all the young ladies would vote for me. [laughter] .) This would be a pretty state of things. No ! Ido not think the time has yet come for universal sufferage, and for ladies to vote. But lam m favor of manhood suffrage, with, a twelve months residential qualification, and registration. I believe m every facility being given for registration. Three months are ample time for a man to apply to have his name on the Electoral Eoll, and if he does not do it, he deserves to lose his vote. lam m favor of registration associations. I would do all I can to get men to register, but. if they do not, they deserve to suffer for their culpable negligence. Of cour.se, a man Avho acquires property m tho colony, ought to be allowed to vote without the twelve months residence. So far, then, I am m favor of manhood suffrage. (Applause.) The next question is, representation according to population. Mr William Swanson made a remark on this question, the other day, which very much surprised me, and I may say I felt highly edified. He said that they ought to have the same number of Members for the North Island as for the South. If Mr William can bring about such a state of things, I shall do all m my power to support him. But the South Island population has been increased m a greater i\itio than tho North, by wholesale immigration. Tho population of the South Island, at present, is 255,205 persons, Avhile that of the North is only. 159,208. Now, if we have representation according to population, we shall have to lose five members. This seems very hard, as indeed it is, considering it is the result of the enormous tide of immigration flowing into the rfouth, and the large amount of money expended on Public Works, to keep them employed. In. the speech of Mr Seymour George, the candidate for Rodney, occurs the only instance of a remark which is very just, and from the terse way m which it is put, would seem to have come from some one behind, who had prepared his speech for him. That, m representation, there should be one member fop every 0.000 of population, but that very large considerations should be made m favor of country districts. Ihe, towns should not be allowed to swamp the country districts. There is a great tendency to centralism, which must be guarded against. If we look at the state of monetary affairs, between the North and South Islands, we shall see tliat a great iu justice has been done. And if you send me to Wellington, as i feel morally certain you will, I shall strive to unite witty the Auckland Members, and all those qf the North Island, and get justice done to us for the future. I can foresee much trouble crop • ping up from this question, the question of Separation may arise, there will be much heartburnings over it, and the result it is difficult to foretell. I am prepared to fight the question out side by side with the Northern members, to fight it out to Separation if necessary, but to fight-it to the last. (Applause.) The population of the South Island to that of the North is as 3 to 2. Now out of the twenty-three millions borrowed, 809 miles of railway have been constructed m the South Island and only 336 miles m the North. That is about two and a-half as many miles m tho South as tfyero are m the North. Now this is not according to population. But the Southern members say that tho railways m the North cost more than those m the South as the country is more b-okeu. They say that the cutting there and the tuuuel here will cost too much, and they show that the Southern lines can be moro easily made. But this is not tho case. The railways m the South have cost £7100 per mile, while those m the North Qtily cost £0500 por mile. When I was down South, I was quite surprised to see the guards, quite s\yells with their dress with silver lace, and silver whistles, the splendid .stations and every possible convenience. But m tho North we have w,ot tUesq t&iugs, Way slwuM yuUwaya

m the North only co»t .£6500 while those m the South cost £7100 ? Wo would not grumble at it provided they gave us more railways for the difference m the money. Wo would be quite content to have railways that cost only £0500 per mile. Out of the last five million loan, £3,700,000 was appropriated for works m the South Island, and £2,(500,000 for works m the North Island. INow, out of this vote for the North, £1,160,000 was allocated for the Te Awamutu and Taranaki railway— a work which has not yet been commenced, and we do not know when it is likely to be. That such a work shonld be carried out as soon as possible, is absolutely necessary. But I think that it is one of such importance to the whole of the colony, that the colony, as a whole, should bear the expense. If there was a war, the South would have to bear its share of the cost. This railway would bo a safeguard against a war, and therefore it ought to be constructed out of the general funds, and no money ought to be voted for the South, as against the vote for thia railway. Such a work would be a benefit to the whole colony, and its cost should be borne by the colony as a whole. I have no doubt that when I get down to Wellington as your representative, as I feel sure I shall, (applause) I shall find that iVlr Macandrew has signed contracts for the expenditure of the whole of that £3,700,000 voted for Public Works m the South Island, and small blame to him if he has, for the expenditure has been authorised. But what I say is, that the £) ,500,000 now being spent m the North, is not a fair allocation. This, I shall try to got remedied, but it is a question which will cause us much trouble. I cansee the Separation Question cropping up through it, and I think it will be a source of much difficulty, but I shall go down prepared to fight it out to the last. (Applause.) Another question I shall draw your attention, to, namely, the Land Fund : Now, I regard the appropriation of this fund, by the South, as downright pilfering. That land fund was the property of the whole colony, it was public money, the property of you and me, and because of a so called compact, which has been .-earched for, and cannot be found m the statute book, the money must be appropriated. I say, it is contrary ,to the constitution. The money ought all to be regarded, as indeed it is, as colonial revenue, and distributed fairly throughout the whole Colony. It is just the same m principle, now that 20 per cent, is retained. I tell you, this 20 per cent, does not mean nothing. I see by the returns that the other day Selwyn County got £38,000, and G-eraldine, £26,000, out of this 20 per cent of the Land Fund' they are enabled to carry on all their works and have a large amount to their credit at the bankers, while we m the North are not able to get our roads and bridges made. This I say is injustice ;if it was only one psr cent the principle would be the same, and it ought to be remedied. I sincerely hope that some other member will bring forward a measure to remedy this and when it comes to the vote I shall follow him into the lobby. (Applause.) This was what I said last year. There is another question, viz. the Land Fund. You will, perhaps, recollect that last session the Land Fund was made colonial revenue with the exception of 20 per cent. Ido not think that, pecuniarily speaking, that h?>.s been any gain to us. The arrangement was a round-about one, and as it may not be generally known, I will endeavor to explain it. After the provinces Avere abolished, there were placed against the Land Fund inOtago and Canterbury charges for certain services which previously had been defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund — that is to say, we had to pay for certain services, such as hospitals, gaols, and so forth, out of the general revenue, which were charged against the Land Fund. So that, although we did not practically put the money into the chest and pay it out again, we arrived at the same result by another method, and we made these things a first charge against the Land Fund. There was" no gain pecuniary, but there was m principle. I was born and bred m the North, and the first thing I knew m politics was that there was a certain fund which belonged to the State, and which was being appropriated by one section of it ; and I shall never be satisfied until that 20 per cent goes too. If I have anything to say m the matter, I shall adhere to that to the very last. I consider it is not a fair thing. I will put it to you m this way : Here is a tiling called a compact. It is searched for m the statute book, and cannot be found ; it cannot be produced as an agreement m writing, but is a sort of intangible something which appears to, have been arranged between the political heads of parties without the consent or knowledge of the people, and m consequence of which the funds of the people were taken away for 20 years by half of the colony, to the detriment of the whole. It is by this means that the people m the South have been enabled to obtain such hospitals and gaols as those of which they boast to Northern men who go down there ; for a man cannot go to the Southern cities without seeing that palaces, have been erected with money that should belong to the whole qf ihe colqny. I could go further-, but the views which I hold on the question of the Land Fund are, perhaps, too strong for almost anybody ■ and as it is at present impossible to cany them out, it is no use starting animosities. But this 20 per cent, will be dealt with, naxt session, and if elected, I shall he found voting that we should absorb that as Avell ; because it is a measure of justice that we are entitled to from the other part of the colony. These are my views on the subject. (Applause,) There ig a very impqrtaut point where I differ foam Mr Macandrow, he wished the now loan only to be spent m railways. Now, railways we want, as many as possible, but there are places, where wo cannot have railways, but we can have roads and bridges — these are absolutely necessary. Now, if the morey is all to bo spent m railways, I fear that the great bulk of it will be spen 1 -. m the South Island. We ought to get a sufficient grant for roads and bridges. We did get E4Q.QOO last year, hut I qqti~ aider that only an installment. L,ast ycjar. I said, i'l do not think £10,0.00 is much to give us as compensation for all the South has had. I do not grudge the South their prosperity, but I do not consider that one portion of a country has a right to grow rich at the expense of the other. £40,000 is a very small measure of justice, and we should struggle hard for more. We got that sum out qf a comparatively empty Excqequer, and now that the loan has been raised, we should gro in and get some more money for the province of Auckland, where only two lines of railway are being constructed, and they are very short ones too I would also be m favour of having the money distributed between the local bodies, whatever they may be," Wo ought tq hayo a special grant for haubourg. In the Squth Island they have rioi so many, 'and good harbours as we have m the North, ! but they have been able to get better roads to them- I shall, if you send me to the House, try and get a special grant for improving the harbours of the • North Island. I feel perfectly certain that we shall be able to get a grant for this., and for roads and bridges. We now come to the Native Office. I would advocate the , gradual abolition of the Native Office. I think that any institution vrhioh "can spnud £-10,0,00, eiQjOQO, oc £QO,qOO qf public money, and give no'aoeount'of; it ' whatever, is one -that we can no. longer toleratq, The 0%0 \m -bwtt

considerably increased, and. nitive difficulties seem to have increased, also. I cannot see what will bo the outcome ! of the late outrage at Ohiiiorauri, I think that it may lead to serious dhiiculties. When I first heard of it, was jusb before I addressed the meeting, at Alexandra. I then just noticed it, but I do not now know much move, but it seems to me a very serious business. But Ido not believe the Native Office is necessary. We could deal with these matter's, perhaps, better without ifc. I dont think it necessary to keep up the Native Office, therefore, I shall votd for its abolition. (Applause.) Now, Avith regard to th<3 land laws, I will vote for any measure that will best promote the settlement of the country. My remarks on this subj ect, last year, wore: "There is another and even more cogent reason why we should have this division of land, and m my opinion it is one of the reasons that will ultimately cause the decay of all the old nations m Europe. It is the enormous gulf that is rapidly being created by reason of the accumulation of wealth m the hands of the few and the poverty of the many. Instead of there being gradual steps m the social ladder, each communicating with the other, and keeping the I whole fabric together, we now jump from the immensely wealthy to the horribly poor m all these old countries ; and tho result has simply been that the .old yeomanry class — such persons as we see around us hero— have been gradually driven out of the country by capitalists, with large blocks of land. It has very often been a problem to say where these men have gone to. They have gone into tho big States. They have had to go to work m factories and large manufacturing establishments, instead ox living on the land m a free and open country, smd becoming healthy, strong and robust men, fit to keep a nation together. This view of political economy is one which I do not hold for the first time. I have entertained it for 10 or 15 years — ever since when, although quite a boy, I took an interest m these things, and read a j work on political economy by Sismondi, I who pointed out the immense danger likely to accrue from the sweeping away of the middle class of yeomanry. ""(Hear, hear.) The result of such a policy will be nothing else but revolution and anarchy ; becaase these men will be driven to such a state of starvation and desperation that they will turn round upon the wealthy. Of course that is the extreme point. We have not come to that, or near it, m this country, thank God ; but lam pointing out the evils which must accrue if we do not have a land law that will provide far the settlement of small farmers m the country. The disproportion of wealth m England is painful indeed to any man who thinks. I, myself, have seen m London carriages rolling up to the door of the National Gallery, and ladies who had, perhaps, £2,000 or £3,000 worth on their backs, stepping out and passing alongside of beggars. That wants equalising somehow." We have not come to that here yet, but we shall come to it some day, unless we take care that that there are land laws that will prevent the people from being driven from settling on the land of the country. Labour, it must be recollected — actual labour — only forms one staple m tho real wealth of the country. I define the wealth of a country not to mean the mere accumulation of specie; but I am one of those who belong to the school of political economy which defines it to be the greatest happiness to the greatest number of the individuals within the limits of nations." (Applause.) In Mr Sheehan's speech, before the North Island Association,hepropounded a measure very much the same as a bill I drafted at Wellington, during last session. The bill was not brought before the House, as there wre one or two clauses which it was said would be impossible to carry out. One was, that no person should hold more than a limited area of land. It was said, " how is it to be found out how much a man does hold. I±e might have land registered under another name," L would compell him to make a statutory declaration, "and if he should then violate that, let him be liable for two years penal servitude, without the option of a fine. Let us have all our dealings with native lands, fair and square . At first the Government had the sole right to purchase native lands. This was quite right, and they ought to have stuck to it. But m 1862, a measure was passed by which natives were invited -to indicate their titles, and private persons could acquire lands. In 1875, another Native Lands Act was passed, one of the provisions o f whiqh -\\fas, that theer should be no more than ten names on each grant. It was thought, that if this was the case, the block must necessarily be small. But this was what was; done, especially at Hawkcs Bay : Ten names only were put upon the grants, and those only of the of the most influential chiefs, and I am very sorry to say that m some cases the.se chiefs stuck to all the money, and so now many natives claim a share m the land. In 1869, another ict was passed, by which any number of names could be put on a block. Now, tho Maori, out of arqha to his friends ai^d relatives, have all theii; names put upon th.c grant. I know-' of a block of 20Q or 3QO acres v^hich had 400 names, of 80 acr-es with more than 100 names, Now the consequence is that x-a one hut a vory lavgd capitalist can buy lauds, he requires a great deal uf paMuuco and tho pqoket of a Oroseus to get any. This system ought to bo done away with. L3t us have native lands sold by auction or otherwise m such a manner that will conduce to the bonafulc settlement of the laud, With, regard t.u local works I will not tell a Hamilton audience what I will do, you all kuo.w what I h,ave done, I say }qqk at th.c past and you will know what to expect for the future. If ai\y oue wants to see what I have dono, behold it is written m the books of the Hamilton Boroijgh. Council, aince I came before you last year, my views have not changed one iota, and if you send me to the House you may be sure that I shall follow the same straightforward course which has always characterised my dealings with, yon. Meanr.ysay that I aiu fo,r BaiU and |am foi; Appljqs b'.ut how. -re of Ol^pstr. .ft. I a y. th.it it is so. »od .lous for . ln.nin Auckl n4 like John King- to publish disgriceful squibs which h .ye not the slightest foundation, tending to injure me. I h ive now been amongst you for more thm 5 years and you all know me well enough to pl*ce your confidence m me, as I feel sure you do, and will pi , C c me *t the head, qf the poll on the election diy [Gre.t Appl^se.) "' ' 3 ' The Onairmau" stated that it was nowcompetent for any elector to ask questions. He hoped he would not be let off without them. An elector asked what MrWhitaker considered a fair' amount of land to hold. Mr Whitkaer said that would depend upon his means. He th,qugh,t that such holding as these about Te Awamutu, and Alexandra, and PuKerimu (liqW just c,qme through Pukerimu, and liVed'th* look of the district), such as the f ,nns of Eisher. and Gane. Those were the kind of holdings which he thought the land ouo-ht b,e laid out for. ' " ° JV^r Laishley asked if Mr Whitaker knew what had become of the money voted for the Taran tki R ilw .y ? Mf Whit >ker s dd to tho best of my belief the money is not spent, but is. still reserved. ■ An elector- ssked whit w.is Mr. Wh.il; »- ! keyy opinion un the. W-aikatq and Thames : Railway, ought it to be commenced -hero or at Gr th nistown ? Mr Whittled': J ij] v - e tllo Thunes p^OjJ.e^ I have ue.uly ay m,\ny irjeud.

tlio-ro :ia l;fw, hut £100,000 ought to have boe;i S|>cnt hero. I could toll ;.n horrible t lo with regrd to it, «.s I wjs iv Wellington at the time oi ; tlie job. Mr Bright : Mr Whitaker is aware that the Taranaki and To Awamutu line is, perhaps, nob likely to bo constructed for yani-A. Would Mr Whitaker favor a, scheme for laying out the money on a railway to the Hot Lakes, Taupo and Napier ? Mr \7hitakor : I consider the Taranaki railway of infinitely more importance than the one spoken of by Mr Bright. For the Taranaki-Te Awamutu railway, a sum of money ought to be laid aside, out of the funds of the whole colony, but I would support a railway through the Ngatihaua country. Mr Slater asked, if 'Mr Whitaker would vote against .Sir George Grey's Electoral Bill, if the six months residental qualification was brought m ? Mr Whitaker : I don't think the six months qualification, is to be made a leading feature of the bill. I simply said I would be satisfied with nothing less than twelve months qualification, and I am sure my single vote would not fcffect the measure m that way. - Another elector asked Mr WiS^dter's opinion on the Education Question.' Mr Whitaker: With the record of the late elections of City West and Nelson before me, I must say that the Colony has declared itself on education. The present system is now firmly established, as, indoefl, it ought to be, and I shall oppose any other introduced. Mr George Edgecombo asked the candidates opinion on Chinese Immigration. j Mr Whitaker: Seven or eight years ago, I delivered a lecture on Chinese Immigration. I W as then a free trader m anything, but I have grown more of a protectionist on this matter, and others, except on merchandise. A gentleman said, the other day, wo can pay too dear for a cheap article. The Chinaman, m California, was very troublesome. He would soon own all the coast, and this is a good climate, and they would, no doubt like it well, but I do not think it desirable to have them. If wo have a few hundred coolies, we can, no doubt, get work out of them cheap, but we might have to pay for it, iv leprosy, or something of the kind. The country is much better without them. No more questions being asked, Mr Vialou proposed a vote of thanks to Mr Whitaker.ifor his address. Mr Peat seconded. A vote of confidence was proposed, but after a little discussion amongst the audience, m deference to Mr Cunningham, who had yet to appe.r m Hamilton, a vote of thinks, only, was given. The Chairman alsoreceived a vote of th uiks.