The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1873

Evening Star, Issue 3270, 13 August 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1873

The debate on the Tariff Bill, a sketch of which we have by telegraph, was a most lamentable exhibition of the incompetence of the House of Representatives to deal with the question of taxation. The Ministry appear to have drawn upon themselves an army of hornets, each buzzing a different note of attack. It seemed scarcely to matter whether the insect was friend or foe : lie inflicted a wound. All the crude and interested calculations of importers were thrust upon them, and they were required to confute them. If they turned in one direction, they were met by information received from one firm as to the extra duty he would have to pay on one shipment. Before that hornet was beaten oft' they were confronted by another with a different story. Boots and shoes ticketed 150 per cent, advance on duty were flaunted before their vision on one side, as an objection to 10 per cent, duties ; while on die other they were clapped on the back by the advocates for protection to Native industry. Saddles, too, it was prophesied would be taxed double, a contingency which fidgetted Mr Pearce so much, that the idea seemed to render him uneasy in his seat. The rumpus would not have been complete without the introduction of that ill-used being, the agriculturist; who, singular to say, was lugged into the quarrel by what somebody, we forget who, some time ago described as his “ natural enemy,” a squatter. Mr Stafford, in this instance, stood up for cheap agricultural implements. Our ideas on taxes on imports are no secret. We consider them only a very clumsy expedient for obtaining a revenue, adopted because men are not prepared for a sounder and more equitable system. As this is the case, for many years tol come the plan will be continued in spite of its unfairness, and the constant effort on the part of certain sections of the community to free themselves from bearing their fair share of the burden. But pray, Mr Stafford, tell us why the farmer should be protected rather than the shoemaker, or the saddler, or the agricultural implement maker ? Is there anything about the raising of wheat or oats, which any dolt can do if he can plough and sow and has good ground to work upon, to justify relieving the farmer from taxation which others are called upon to pay ? If grain is necessary to sustenance, are not boots and shoes to health and comfort? And are not skilled workmen, like boot and shoe makers, or saddlers and harness makers, or agricultural implement makers, equally worthy of consideration with the farmer? Moreover, tell us Mr Stafford, if you can, why John Brown, who earns two pounds a week with which to keep his wife and family of half-a-dozen, shall be compelled to buy taxed tools to follow his calling with, while Giles Scroggins, who makes a thousand a-year by his farm, and whose family is just as numerous, is to have his double-furrow plough, or reaping, mowing, and thrashing machines duty free? The whole of the debate last wight shewed it was made an importers’ question. One house on a special importation would have to pay so much more duty, another so much. It was all expediency: no principle was thoroughly canvassed, although some vague visions were floated about the effects of measurement compared with ad valorem duties. To-day we draw attention to a little elementary work on political economy, for the use of schools, and we think, in charity, a subscription ought to be got up to present a copy to each member of the House of Representatives and Legislative Council, with a request that they will master its principles, and endeavor to understand their practical application during the recess. They will not master them during the session, If they are wise enough to follow that advice, we venture to say such a debate will not recur next session of Parliament.