DEPUTATION OF BREWERS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5430, 22 August 1878, Page 2

DEPUTATION OF BREWERS.

A deputation consisting of Messrs. Marshall and Joel of Dunedin; Messrs. Manning and Todhimte , of Christchurch; Mr. Johnson, fm* the firm of Whitson and Co., of Auckland ; Messrs. Staples, and Macarthy, of Wellington ; and Messrs. Dodson and Sharp, M.1i.11., of Nelson, waited on the Colonial Treasurer yesterday in reference to the proposed tax on beer. The deputation was introduced by Mr. Sharp, M.H.R. Mr. Marshall acb°d as spokesman. He said that the deputation, knowing the value of the Minister’s time, had condensed their arguments as much as possible and reduced them to writing. He then read the arguments, the most important of which were That the tax must fall on the brewer or the publican, and not on the consumer, therefore it was class legislation ; that it was hi/hly impolitic and unjust to impose a tax on a local , industry, upon which very large capital had been expended, and which was yet in its infancy, when it had had time to mature, say twenty-live years hence, it would be all right to tax it; that the tax would have the effect of inducing brewers, in selfprotection. to manufacture au inferior article, and, the beer being bad, men would turn to drinking spirits instead, and thus drunkenness would be largely increased ; that it was unfair to make the tax retrospective, as it practically was, as many large contracts had been entered into without any calcu : ation for the tax, also the brewers had laid in lar«je.stoc'<s, not anticipating the tax; that the brewers ought to have received the same consideration as did the distillers, who had received twelve months' notice of the Government’s intention to increase the duty on colonial spirits to the same rate as imported spirits paid, and in addition to this had got a large bonus : that the brewers considered it grossly unfair to cause them to make up the deficiency in revenue produced by the falling off in the importation of English beet; that New Zealand was the only one of the Australian colonics in which a beer tax had been proposed for imposition, and though it was not large it was the thin end of the wedge, and they did not kno v where it might lead to; that the calculations of the Colonial Treasurer had been based on a false estimate as to the price of beer, it being at most not mo o th in an average of £4 10s. per hogshead instead of £5, as alleged by the Treasurer; that the tax. instead of being only eight per cent, was at least thirteen; that it would practically take away half of the net profit which even now was small: that every brewery of any considerable size wouldjhe mulct in a sum of from £IOOO to £2OOO ; that it would have been better to take only Ad. per lb. off sugar instead of id., and thus £34.000 would have been saved, and beet was a necessity to the pnor man as well as sugar ; that tke relief afforded the brewer by taking off the Id. per lb. off sugar was a mere trifle ; that if the tax were imposed the brewers would be doubly taxed, as they would have to pay on the materials as at present, and on the article manufactured ; that it would have been better to impose an additional tax on spirits,—brandy, for instance, might easily pay 2s. per gallon more, being principally used by the wealthy. Mr. Ballance replied that the brewers had i certainly advanced the best aspect of the case. The Government had never intended that the tax should fa! on the brewer; and it was a universal principle of legislation that all taxes were paid by the consumer. The object of the Government was solely to raise revenue, and they had no intention whatever of injuring the browing industry. He had heard that the brewers generally had determined to make the publicans pay the tax.—The deputation said that this had been done in self-protection, ns the publicans wore n very large class, scattered all over the country, and could bring powerful influence to bear on Parliament, —Mr. Ballance again remarked that the tax was. three halfpence per gallon, while in America it was almost 3d., and in England from 13 to to 23 per cent. ; that the New Zealand brewers had a protection of Is. per gallon against English beer, whilst in Australia the highest duty on English beer was only 9d., and consequently after paying the 1-Ad. per gallon on colonial beer they would still have greater protection against English beer than the brewers in any Australian colony. He said he wished to know if thay would like to accept the alternative of reducing or removing the duty on English beer, by which means the revenue from that source would be doubled.—-The deputation did not seem inclined to accept this alternative.—ln reference to the tax reducing the quality of beer, Mr. Ballance said that he had been reliably informed that it would have quite the contrary effect. As to making the tax retrospective, the brewers had a strong case, and he would endeavor lo secure them a rebate. He'liad based his calculations regarding the price of beer on most reliable information, and he believed they were correct. In regard to taking only -id. instead of Id. per lb. off sugar, that opened up the whole question of taxation, and could not be gone into at the present time. It would bo practically impossible to impose any additional duty on spirits, as this would lead to wholesale smuggling* and illicit distillation. The Government had adopted the American system of collecting this duty by stamps, as they believed to be the best, and ho would bo most happy to receive any suggestion from the brewers in regard to minor details. Ho would tell them candidly that the Government were firmly determined to adhere to the main principles of the Bill.—The deputation replied that if the BUI became law they would be very glad to suggest the best methods of working it.

The deputation then thanked tho Minister for his courtesy and withdrew.