THE KAURI GUM TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1655, 8 June 1875, Page 2

THE KAURI GUM TAX.

Or/E telegrams from Whangarei have already announced the fact that the gum-diggers are in arms under the mistaken notion that the proposed tax of £5. per ton will j^ess very seriohslv upon them. The Whfcngarei Comet, in ita first issue gives voice to this cry in the following article, which is by no means bad for so juvenile a member»pf ,the fourth es-! t a te :—"The proposed tax of £s'per ton on kauri gum has caused considerable excitement on the gum-fields, and not without cause, we think. The-^iiggers themselves— although a large community—have not in reality any representation in- the Council. The gold-miner pays £1 per year for his miner's right, and being in possession pf» property of the value of £s—a5 —a whare, for instance —he is entitled to a vote. The gumdigger, on the other hand, pays a royalty of £3 ior every ton of gum he digs—or about£l6 per year—but has no vote. The royalty, of course, is paid to the native owners of the land, because the Government does not protect the gum-digger with a license as in the . case of the gold-miner, but actually prohibits gum,-digging on- Government land. We would ask any sensible man whether- this ■ system is not rotten. The Government prohibit gum digging—gives the digger ng. protection—forces him4o pay an enormous1 royalty, and then calls upon him to pay a still more enormous tax. Is this justice to the gum-digger? We say no emphatically. And what is the consequence ?^-a hard-work ing, industrious community, who produce a' staple export commodity of the value. of £125,000 yearly, is to be taxed at the veiy modest rate.of 17 per pent—and perhaps :more—on their yearly earnings..for the edu cation of the progeny \ Because why ? Because the generous minded politicians who have pro-' perty had to parry off an income tax. This, they did with that pure and noble instinct' that told them Self must otherwise suffer. Is it not monstrous. Tidiculous and absurd in , the extreme that a community of labouring men should be singled out tto pay for the education of the children of both rich and poor by a direct tax upon' theft industry ? What an anomaly in political go.venment! Mr. Dargaville, or any other politcal quack, can say it is not a direct tax, but th_,t is'orily child's talk, peculiar to that shallow school of lavender-glove-and--Iver-spoon-and-fork" politicians. We;ask is there a man with so little manliness who would allow the earnings' of the. gum-digger to be-devpted to the education Of his children ? Mr. "Dargaville would perhap_—and probably his worthy seconder, Mr. Hurst—-but there arc-not many of them. . Our worthy Superintendent, in his opening i speech, said a man having a .wife and four children, contributed £26 yearly to the revenue.- Suppose that man to be a gum digger —then he pays besides : royalty £16, and with the export tax £25 more; in all £67. Not bad ! The province in its bankrupt state would do well with a few more gum-diggers.