Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-04-19
AN ENTIRE NOVELTY,

the Irish taxpayer
AN ENTIRE NOVELTY,
and may we'll fill him with as
constituent and alarm. For the first
time it is proposed that not the indiYid-
ual tenant; not the state, but the rate
payers of Ireland, shall be responsible
for the failure on the part of the tenants
to pay the installments of the loans which
may be advanced to them for the purchase
of their holdings. Among the guarantees
which are provided for the repayment
of the advances to the landlords is, for
instance, that of county rates fixed by
grand juries for the purpose. In other
words, should any number of tenants IN
any particular district of a county fail
to pay the installments due on
their loans, the result will be that
the grand jury will levy rate calculated
to produce the amount of the deficiency
Not only the tenants OF agricultural
holdings, but also the tenants of town
houses will be
MADE TO BEAR THE BURDEN;
and the most ridiculous feature of the
whole arrangement is that chief among
the persons who will be thus assessed will
be the defaulters themselves.
Again, amongst the guarantees espe-
cially provided for the payment of ad-
vances for contracted districts is the bal
ance of the Irish church surplus fund.
1t is doubtful, in the first place, whether
this supposed surplus exists at all, but
even If it does exist it is a security of
the most doubtful character. The Irish
church surplus consists of the payment
of a 1.-THE of the rent charged by land
lords. When the church act was passed
the landlords were gwen an OPP
pOrrtunity of redeemlng the 1.-THE rent
charge within a certain number Of years.
In so far as this opportunity has been
avalled of the church funds are of course
a substantial reality, for they have taken
the shape of
ACTUAL CASH IN HAND.
But in so far as the oppor-
tunity has been let slip by (and
cases in which this has
occurred are very numerous), the sur
plus depends upon the regularity Of the
payments by the landlords and their sue
cessors; ad in this statement of facts
lies, as plain as possible, proof of the
assertion that if agitation should ever
revive, and if the landlords should be
largely replaced by tenants, the
to exist; and should this ever happen
further result will be that the Irish tax
payers will again be called to the rescue,
for it is provided that in the event OF
the church surplus failing, the loss
may be made good by Withholding
the contributions now given from
the imperial exchequer for edu-
calion and for relief, which would
mean in its turn the imposition of fur
Their local taxation to the extent Of the
Withholding of the imperial grants. The
Irish taxpayer may we'll feel that he
has a new interest in the Irish land
question should these arrangements ever
come to be actual facts; nor would it be
surprising if, this arrangement being
thrust down his throat, he should seize
the first opportunity presented to him of
repudiating the obligation involved and
thus upset all ministerial calculations as
to the character of what Mr.. Balfour
calls cash guarantees.
The fourth points of view from which
this measure may be regarded, that of
the British taxpayer, is of course the
most important to the English public.
The question is whether under this
scheme the British taxpayer is made
liable for the millions that are to be adj
and if so whether he is made liable under
conditions likely to make his liability.
DIsAGREEABLE REALITY.
Mr.. Balfour pretend that he is under
no real liability by virtue of this scheme,
but his propositions on this point
are the perfection of audaci-
ty. The landlords are, according
RI IN hn in
British Imperial bonds bearing 23I per
cent. interest. Who cannot see in the
face of this proposal that the real guar
antee for the advances that will be made
is the money of the British taxpayer?
Before the British =, payer is called
upon to pay the Irish peasant purchaser
the Irish rate payer must, of course,
fail to pay; and it is possible that
if the Irish question consisted only
of the land difficulty those granters
might be equal to the occasion, but just
here is the rub. The Irish question con-
sists of more than the land difficulty. It
involves also the question of satisfying
the national sentiment of Ireland
by conceding to that country subordi-
nate parliament and an executive for
the management of Irish affairs. Now
let the Unionists' assumption be
granted, namely: That Ireland is not
equal to self-government in local affairs
considering the history not only of Ire.
land, but also of all nations that haYe
ever seen similar circumstances,
WHAT IS MORE PROBABLE
than that the Irish tenant and Irishsrent
payers should take it into their heads,
even if they were able to pay, that it
would be good thing to strike, in order
to attain their political ends against
what they would regard as an alien tax?
Itwould be altogether the most conven-
lent and the safest way of rising in in
surrection they have ever had resented
TO them, for they have never yet had
direct imperial tax affecting the country
at large against which to strike. Even
if large proportion OF them went only
the length of refusing to pay till the bay
onets and rifles of the police and SOL
diery appeared at their doorsteps to
enforce, the payment of the tax the OBJ
Aious result would be the total disorgan-
ization of Irish society, the doubling or
trebling of the military force stationed in