28 /. E. Le Rossignol arid IV. D. Stewart 



upon the unimproved value." This proposal excited great oppo-r 

 sition and a spirited debate, and the bill was lost. It shows, how- 

 ever, that the single-taxers of New Zealand are not satisfied with 

 the small measure of land taxation which, they have secured, and 

 that they favor local option only as a means to an end, and, if pos- 

 sible, would make rating on unimproved value not optional but 

 mandatory in every rating district in the Dominion. 



Up to May 15, 1899, tne Act had been submitted to the rate- 

 payers in 23 districts, and in 21 cases received large majorities, 

 the minorities in most cases being remarkably small. In 8 cases 

 less than one-third of the ratepayers voted, and the Act was re- 

 jected, but in all of these districts it was carried at a later date. 

 Up to March 31, 1906, the Act had been rejected by 12 districts 

 and adopted by 69, including 2 cities out of a total of 4, 19 coun- 

 ties out of 97, 38 1 boroughs out of 97, 9 road districts out of 214, 

 and one town district out of 32. In the year 1904 the Act was 

 carried by 6 districts and rejected by 1 ; in 1905 it was carried by 

 6 and rejected by 6; in 1906 it was not voted on in any district; 

 in 1907 it was carried in 4 districts and rejected in 2. On March 

 30, 1908, the borough of North-east Valley, which had adopted 

 the Act on January 12, 1905, by a vote of 202 to 172, voted to 

 rescind by a vote of 354 to 185. This is the first case of rescission, 

 although three other proposals to rescind have been made, and 

 in two cases a strong opposition was developed. In the third case 



'The boroughs represent the class of local bodies in which the evils of 

 land speculation are most felt. Their populations range from a few hun- 

 dred to 10,000. They come midway in the scale of local bodies. They are 

 neither purely rural nor purely urban. Their improvements constitute a 

 greater percentage of their value than do the improvements in the rural 

 districts. At Ihe same time these improvements are not uniformly dis- 

 tributed. The boroughs contain many vacant sections — sometimes held in 

 blocks for a rise in value — sometimes held as grazing paddocks. Hence, 

 in the boroughs, the evils of land speculation press on the notice of even 

 the casual passer-by who may never have heard of the doctrines of Henry 

 George. At the same time it is in the boroughs that cases of hardship 

 most frequently occur. Some market gardener or small dairy farmer finds 

 himself confronted with increased rates, while he himself is void of offense 

 so far as concerns the evils against which the system is ostensibly directed. 

 These two considerations account to some extent for the large number of 

 boroughs which have voted, and also for the rejection, in some cases, of 

 the proposal. No doubt, also, the concentration of population as compared 

 with the counties makes it easier to obtain a vote. 



276 



