The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1888. THE CUSTOMS PROPOSALS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1745, 2 June 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1888. THE CUSTOMS PROPOSALS.

Last year Sir Harry Atkinson promised that he would introduce a tariff which would be acceptable to both Protectionists and Freetraders, and we must confess that he has gone nearer doing so than we expected. The greatest objection Freetraders had to Protective duties was that it would result in a loss to the revenue, and that this loss would have to be made up by direct taxation. Of course, they did not say this during the recent elections. At the time of the elections, when they wanted to dupe the people into voting for them, they were very virtuous, and almost shed salt tears over the hardships the poor would have to undergo if the Customs duties were raised and the cost of living increased. But no sooner were the elections over than they began to change their tune altogether. They found then that in order to provide revenue it was necessary to increase the Customs, but they said this must not be done in a Protective form. They said in effect that if Protective duties were adopted the goods would be produced locally, and they would cease to yield revenue ; but that if the tax were put on goods which we could not produce in the colony we would have to continue to pay taxes* This is the cruel doctrine which Freetraders preach, The Otago Daily Times, the Christchurch Press, and many other organs of the party, have said it, and Mr : Rhodes was cheered in Temuka recently for saying it. It is a strange, mad doctrine to teach, but it is the chief feature of the fiscal proposals submitted by Sir Harry Atkinson, and consequently it appears to us that thr tariff will on the whole be acceptable to Freetraders. That party consists chiefly of moneyed men, and the only thing they dread is that they will have to pay more property tax. Their scruples on this head have been respected by the Government; they have proposed to increase the tax on almost every conceivable article and thing except property, and that has not been touched. An extra tax of twopence per lb has been placed on tea; salt, which was hitherto free, has now been taxed £1 per ton; cotton goods, hitherto free, now pay 20 per cent., or 4s in the £; rice has to pay 0s per 1001 b, or within a fraction of Id ia the £j pepper, 2d in the £ ; and so on. Thus the articles which the poor require daily, and which must be imported, because they cannot be produced locally, are taxed to the hilt. The tax on tea has been increased 83i per cent., and the tax on many articles has been increased 50 per cent., while in many instances taxes have been put on articles which have hitherto been free. It is impossible to form a correct idea as to what the increased taxation will amount to, owing to the slovenly way in which the proposals have been introduced. In enumerating taxable articles hitherto, the custom has been to catalogue them alphabetically, so as to render reference to them easy, but in this instance the list has been made out in the most confused manner possible. It is, therefore, very difficult to compare the proposed with the previous tariff, but, calculating roughly, we have come to the conclusion that for taxing purposes it means an increase of 10 per cent,, while for Protective purposes the increase is about 5 per cent. The advantage of the proposals is, therefore, altogether on the side of the Freetraders. Two points have been conceded to them—viz,, they will not have to pay any more property tax, and the tariff will yield sufficient revenue—while the one point sought by the Protectionists has not been fully recognised. There is scarcely one recommendation of the conference of Protectionists held recently in Wellington accepted. Still we are told that the Protectionists are more favorable to the tariff than the Freetraders. We quite believe it, because they are more easily satisfied, and they are inclined to be thankful for small mercies. It is, we suppose, better for them to take what they are getting in the way of Protection and be thankful, but in doing so they will run the risk of putting difficulties in the way of getting a proper tariff carried. If the proposed tariff becomes law, we shall have the same struggle to render it more Protective; if, on the other hand, it is rejected now it will result in creating such confusion as would lead to an appeal to the country. The result of such an appeal would be that a strongly Protective Parliament would be returned, and then the taxing machinery of the Customs could be abolished. But, after all, in the present fearfully miserable state of the colony, it is doubtful whether this course would be wise. It is better perhaps to accept the present tariff, and to try to amend it as soon as possible.