South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2716, 2 December 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1881.

In a former article we pointed out Mr J. S. Gibson’s inconsistency in advocating the continuance of the property tax instead of the substitution of a land and income tax in lieu of it, and we gave such conclusive proof of our assertion, that the electors will doubtless take all that gentleman’s other protestations of political faith, cum grano satis. At the nomination of candidates Mr Gibson attempted to

justify his altered opinions on the subject of taxation, by stating that the Property Tax Act had been recently amended to fit in with his views. Mr Gibson’s conscience must be very elastic indeed if the amendments made in that Act were sufficient to stretch it from one system of taxation to another. What were the amendments in the mode of imposing the property tax ? They were, first, the simplification of the schedule, so that people could state the value of the property they possessed, without giving the particulars of each sum of money due by, and owing to, them—to enable them in fact to state the value of their real and personal estates in a lump sum ; and secondly, to include the taxation of other moneys not previously made taxable ; also certain trivial exemptions from the operation of the tax. But the principle of the lax was not in any way altered. We wish the electors to note this particularly, for fear that Mr Gibson’s conservative friends should attempt to persuade them into the belief that he was justified in changing his opinions on a question of such vital importance to the country, and more especially to the dwellers in large towns. The property tax taxes all improvements, and is a clog upon the wheels of progress. It taxes merchants, drapers, storekeepers, and all tradespeople on the full value of the stocks they hold in their places of business ; and anyone who knows anything about the stocks held by business men know well that a large percentage of the goods are dead stock. If a merchant, draper, or storekeeper starts business with say a capital of £SOOO, and invests it in the purchase of stock, he has to pay the property tax on £4500 annually, and it may he—and unfortunately in the present depressed state of trade it is only too often the case—he discovers at the end of the year that instead of having made money the balance is on the wrong side of his books. Then again, this tax which which Mr Gibson so much admires, taxes book debts. We all know from experience what a beautiful asset book debts are, particularly when we receive notices day after day informing us that Mr So-and-so “ has filed a declaration that he is unable to meet his engagements with his creditors.” Yet people have to pay the property tax on these debts, good and bad, for at the time the statement of property is demanded it is impossible to say how much of one’s book debts will be good and how much are likely to be bad. Both stock and book debts are practically unavailable assets, for they cannot be disposed of or collected at once. Yet, being “property” within the meaning of the Property Tax Act, they are taxed. This is not all. Traders have to pay Customs duties from 15 per cent, ad valorem to over 300 per cent, (on tobacco, for instance) before they are allowed to take the goods into their stores, and the interest on the cash thus paid is an additional tax upon them. It may be said in answer to this argument: “ Yes, but the consumer pays in the long run, and the merchant is recouped for his interest on money expended.” Quite so. We admit that the consumer pays, but the payment by the consumer is only another instance ot the iniquity of the tax. The masses are trebly taxed. They pay through the Customs tariff; they pay the interest on the Customs tariff; and if they be traders themselves they also pay the property tax on the value of the goods in stock. And for what reason ? Simply this—-to shift the burden of taxation from the large landed proprietors—the friends of the “ Timaru Herald ” and the Hall party, and the supporters of their political-chameleon candidate. Out upon such politicians, and the literary advocate of such a monstrously selfish system of taxation. Will the electors of Timaru be hoodwinked into supporting such a set of men, such a set of principles, or such a candidate as has been put forward to champion their cause. We say emphatically, No! It is idle for the “ Herald ” to say that Mr Gibson is not their nominee. That gentleman told us no later than the afternoon before the evening on which he consented to stand for election, that he would not come forward. The “Herald” people promised they would “run him” if he would offer himself for election. Those were the words. Mr Gibson’s life was almost badgered out of him by emissaries from the “ Timaru Herald” office and the Hall party, asking him to stand. The badgering and persuading went on for nearly a week, to our knowledge. We do not go to sleep in our office, as some journalists do. We keep our eyes open, and are always well posted up in what is going on about town. We observed the political plot thickening, and were only waiting and watching for the denouement. The last act in the political drama was that the sub-editor of the “ Herald”—Mr John Hall—accompanied by a mutual friend whose name it is unnecessary to give, but who we are certain will not deny the part he took in the affair, as it was perfectly straightforward and honorable —interviewed Mr Gibson at his own residence, and obtained his consent to stand for election. The requisition and reply were then taken to the “ Herald” office, and printed as an advertisement. These are the strict facts, and as they are of a serai-private nature we regret that we have, in justice to ourselves, been compelled to publish them. We made the statement in our leading columns that Mr Gibson was the nominee of the “ Herald” and the Hall party, and we still adhere to that statement. We have been led to give circumstantial proof of that statement in consequence of a remark ma de by the “ Herald” in its leader of yesterday that “ Mr Gibson was not their nominee.” We made the statement as the mouthpiece of the public—of the Liberal party—and we shall not. allow the “ Herald” or

any other journal to question our veracity with impunity, even though its opinions be backed by the vacillating member for Geraldine, the Hall party, or any of their satellites. Do not let our readers imagine that m writing as we have done, we have lost our temper. They can rest assured that we are perfectly amiable. Mr Gibson has our entire sympathy in the position in which he has placed himself, and to the statement he made on the hustings when referring to the « Timaru Herald,” namely, “ Save me from my friends,” we say Amen, with all our heart. We are convinced that, wittingly, Mr Gibson would not do a dishonorable action, and we regret that we have to handle him somewhat roughly during the present election, but he and his opinions have made public targets of themselves, and while we wield the journalistic pen we shall not hesitate to fire our opinions at them. We have given our views on the prejudicial effects of the property tax on the towns, and in a future article we shall undertake to show that the same system is equally damaging to the interests of the country, except as regards the large estates. We shall also give our ideas on the incidence of taxation, based on a fair and liberal principle.