ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume III, Issue 734, 16 August 1878, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

TO TIIE KIHTOR OK Till', KVKNINO MAIL. Sir, —I was much amused by reading the letter which appeared in your last issue from "An Inolfensive Bung." There is something so thoroughly original in his way of proving that tho brewors lose Id per gallon, instead of gaining, as you make it out, 2s ltd per hlid. Firstly, he says the now tax will involve in the case of a brewery doing 100 lihds. por week an additional investment of capital to the extent of L4;">o. Well, granted tho interest on that represents at 10 per cent. L 45 per annum, LIS ? 1 "n per month, or 2jd per hhd.—an amount so trifling as not to bo worthy of consideration ; and then this '' Inoffensive Bang" launches out with a lot of twaddle about tho commercial morality of tho Oamaru brewers' returns, waste and ullage, as if these draw-backs to th_- trade only sprang into existence with the obnoxious tax. 1 humbly beg to offer as my opinion that the tax will neither increase or diminish such losses. Then again your correspondent complains that tlio brewer is not allowed a rebate on returned beer on which the tax has been previously oaid. Now, I should like to ask him how it is lie proposes (supposing a rebate was allowed) to ascer-la-.n tho quantity of returns at each brewery. 1 opine the only way to do it would lie to have an excise officer at each brewer} 7 , or take tlio brewer's statement as to the quantity returned. The whole arrangement is simply unworkable. And then as to the poor milkman and that naughty evening paper, that victimise tho suffering public—the one by raising tho price of milk without arousing universal indignation, and the other by the paucity of news in its columns —well, well, let's hope they will mend ; but in the meantime what the consumers object to is, not paying the Government tax, but an additional tax of J,d per gallon to the brewer.— 1 am, itc. Tai'ktuk,