The San Francisco call., 1897-05-09
nBUSINESS WAS
NEVER BETTER" f"
So Says Premier Sedden
Concerning New
Zealand.
Single. Tax Leaders Interview
Him On the Effect of
Exemption.
The Government That Inaug ur ated Ii
Kept in Power Longer Than
Any Other in His tory.

Premier Sedden of New Zealand de.
! parted for the East last evening, continu-
ing his journey TO London and the Queen &
! jubilee. He was entertained on Friday by
John D. Spreckeis, who took him on g
| tour of the bay in tug. Yesterday be
gave luncheon at the Occidental, among
his guests being A. Chesebrough, Clau,
spreckels. c. Reid, Hugh Craig, DR.
Buckley, L. F. Cockroft and Walter Glib
son. He took the 5 o'clock train for the
East.
During the forenoon yesterday Joseph
Leggett and James s. Reynolds, by ap.
! pointment, paid the Premier quite an ex.
tended visit. Mr.. Leggett had letters from
| Consul Conn oily of New Zealand.
! New Zealand is land that the single
takers hold up as an object lesson OF their
! faith, it having advanced somewhat further
| along the line they are pointing out than
! any other country, and Messrs. Leggett
| and Reynolds, leaders of the movement in
| this State, desired to learn from the head
of the Government the effect of the legis-
lation upon the social condition of the
| country and the sentiments OF the people
at present concerning it.
They were especially desirous to know
what the prospect was, If any, for the re-
peal of that clause of the law which ex-
| empted land to the amount OF f500 from
| taxation, a provision which the single
takers, OF course, think false and very
unfortunate step. They asked the Pre-
mier if there was any movement at pres.
| ent in the direction of its repeal.
| Mr.. Sudden promptly replied, mo,
| there is not" But" he said, 1--WE, Mr..
Balance and myself, were compelled to
| yield that much, in order to secure the
support necessary to carry through the part
OF our scheme-tO exempt personal prop
erty and improvements on land to the
amount of f3000
"As there was larger numb Der of per-
sons owning between f200 and $500 worth
Of land their opposition would have been
fatal. This exemption was not part OF
the original plan, but, as stated, was
forced upon us"
In the last session of the Parliament
which expired last year an act was passed
giving to certain municipalities the power
to adopt what has come to be called by
single takers in this country local option
in taxation, under which majority of
electors of the municipality may by popu-
| lar vote determine whether or not they
will exempt personal property and i'm
provements from taxation.
Although manhood and womanhood suf-
frage prevails for the general election for
mem bers of Parliament, property quali-
UCatlOn Is H4eu lot Iuullclpai eleCtlOnS.
Mr.. Sedden was asked how this fact
would affect the likelihood of PROPOSE
tion TO exempt personal property and i'm
provements from taxation being adopted.
In reply he said:
II can only say that in the very first
municipality where the question was SUBJ
mitted-that of Palmerston, North-it
carried"
In his quaint, practical way Mr.. Sedden
| undertook to explain.
Here is block" he said, containing
several allotments. Some are well i'm
proved and some not so well, and som e
others wholly unimproved. The land
throughout the BLOCK is equally valuable,
and so we assess it equally by the front
foot.
Now some whose aIlotments are un-
improved or but poorly improved may
have been paying three halfpence; they
will now have to pay more. say three.