The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE. TUESDAY, OCT. 27, 1891.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3009, 27 October 1891, Page 2

The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE.

TUESDAY, OCT. 27, 1891.

Equal and osact justice to all men, ■ ")1 whatsoever state or persuasion, religious or political.

The Minister of Lanrls addressed his constituents at Pulineraton on Fridiiy. It would bo useless to tollow liini through the figures lie quotes in justification of his administration, we siro nnither in a position to Tol'uto nor cor.tiriu th"m. Wo all know tho facility with which a cnrcful manipukitur can i.uako, in an avitlnaetictil huiiso, blauk appo;ir «hito. We must wait ftjr tho issue of tho next financial statement before we condemn or coincido with the Atinistry as rognrds thoir frugality, Eeforo nonaiclering his dnfoncn of tlto Land and Income Assessment Tax, ifc is necassary to rpinombor tluit Mr AfnKeazio is the collflagno of Mr Ballanco who last, i'ow tlavs has stated that he hoped fi'uehuld tenure would have entirely disappeared within twenty years. Mr McKenzie was by no means nn candid, ho only snf.

liiiusolf the task of justifying the Governinont polic} , so far as it luis as vot boou ompliasisod by legislation. Ho informs his keurors tliut farmers up to £l-'UO would pay loss than uuder tbo existing syttorn and that the revenuo %vas to conio from liirjre larye unprodt',,tinepmpertiets h<3 terms them, [f thoy aro as stntod, how is the revonuo to be derived from them ? Ho goes on to stnto that the larger holder dorivui honofit from the rnilwuys in the proportion of i> 1 to £100, as compared with the small man. Presuming that the land hold bv each is in the same ratio this may bo accepted as fact. But surely this is no argument why the one should pay taxation, as if he had benofitted to the extent of £200 The objoction to the land tax is that it moro than places tho largo holrlor in this position, and that it has therefore with justice bcon characterised as vindictive, and being a class tax, a diftinet breach of faith with those who have invested their money in the land, which the administrators of the colony's affairs in the past were oxtremsly anxious to part with, for the sake of the cash with which to make improvements and carry on the government of the country. For many years ib was treated as a test of the efficiency of the Provincial Executives—the area of land they had been able to dispose of since they last rendered an account of their doings in this respect. It was under these circumstances that most of the large estates were acquired. We now turn round upon tho men who paid their hard cash, mostly full value at the time, and fine them for their enterprise in proportion to their possession of that estimable quality or their financial ability to give effect to it. Mr McKenzie may declaim about justice till the crack of doom, but he will never succeed in convincing any sane man that the land tax can have that abstract noun rightly applied to it. The Land Tax Bill, taken in conjunction with the utterances of the leaders of the Government party, can only be understood as tho first step to confiscation of all freeholds, which the Premier hopes to see accomplished within twenty years. This being the ease, it is hardly worth while to bandy words with Mr McKenzie as to the facilities he oft'ers or does not offer for the acquirement of freeholds. The greater the facilities offered, the greater the dishonesty. A London financial paper chirged the colony with dishonesty for having borrowed money with the knowledge that such an unscrupulous element as that headed by Mr Ballance was likely to attain power. It is true that Mr Ballance opposed the taxing of bondholders. The time was not opportune. The conversion of curtain loans was ponding, an operation which was to afford him a chance of borrowing a large sum under another name. If this charge was justifiable against the colony, how much more so against a Ministry that sells under what in their eyes is only a fictitious title, inasmuch as it is contemplated to make it non-existent within twenty years. It is hardly to be expected that Mr MeKenzie could conclude a speech without making , one or two wild and inaccurate statements. He has not disappointed his constituents in this respect. Ho told them that the town members wore tho frienJs of the small settlers, and that country members were the representatives of the large land-owners. The fact that a very largo majority of the country members aro opposed to Mr McKenzie and his doings has to bo accounted for. Was over a greater sneer passod upon any class of men than that by tho Miuistcr for Lands on tho class whoso protoctor he professes to bo ? The small holders by far outnumber tho large; the former therefore return the member. Ho has had the audacity to tell them in effect that trades unionists or town loafers undorstnnd their businesses bottor than they do themselves. Tho fact of the matter is that country settlers aro too farsoeing- to sond men to tho Houso to tax them abovo all other slasaes. Mr McKenzie is angry in consen nonce, and the retort of Sir J. Vogol to a warm expression by Sir E. \V. Stafford applies to this case: "Tho hon. gentleman is angry, and when ho is angry he is rude" Wo will rofrain from further comment lest wo should render ourselves liable to the same charge, for augry we certainly aro that a man in Mr McKenzie's position should make such a statement.