The Press. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1886.

Press, Volume XLIII, Issue 6370, 18 February 1886, Page 2

The Press. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1886.

We —ere glad to get from the Government journal yesterday a somewhat grudging admission that more railways mean more taxation, that a spirited Public "Works policy necessitates a large addition to the burdens of the people. Hitherto the Government and their supporters in advocating a large Public Works loan have been careful, while dilating upon the supposed advantages of a large public expenditure, to keep in the background the fact ythat this expenditure involves a largeof "the public burdens. It is true that the Premier some time aga warned the country that every million borrowed must involve' extra taxation to the tune of £40,000 a year. But this statement was .generally passed; over id silence by tbej&oyernment journals. Jfaw, however; the leading Government journal seemsdisposed 'to admit the truth of the Premier's assertiou. We are told that the taxation'is not to be crushing, but", we are led to suppose that it will /be tolerably heavy. This is quite sufficient for our purpose. As long as it is clearly tmderstood that we cannot borrow largely without being taxed heavily, We feel confident that public opinion wfll prevent the, adoption of any more extravagant Public Works schemes; As we reminded pur readers the other day, Mr; JBieHAJuDsOK, in his Public .Works Statement in 1884, declared that the .Gbternment ; would not undertake any fresh public works which would necessitate fresh taxation. They \ would only borrow to such an extent as the ] : "natural increase of revenue, : coupled with the extra revenue (if any) from the newly constructed works, would allow of without further But : the Groverximent have abandoned this position. They have abandoned: aU idea of retrenchment ,of every aiudk and we are now face to face with tHs|s fact that the policy which they coh-i template is one which, will necessitates a'great deal of extra taxation. So, i£ the "Government policy, be adopted J we know now what to-expect, and ouft knowledge- is derived, . not ; mereljj from the argutnente and warnings of those who are opponents of thel Government, ,bx?t from -the admin* sions bt the journal which is the! most thorough-going of supporters. We told something about the kind of taxation which wo are •■ to expect. It is not to be taxation of the wealthy. "'Thafc must not he thought of. It;i» to be taxation of the poor. It is ndtto be taxation, for then the taxpayer .would folly understand thatho js befog taxed, aiid 'vrovl&..:r)eT^U''£tj!..&' l sd. be; mdjrect taxation, obtained in Such a way as to delude tbe taxpayer into tiie pleasing notion that he is/not i being taxed at all. - Tbe protection heresy Seems'to hare been protection of the wealthy in democratic countries. Where, as here, pblitical power reals entirely witb;:%e poor, that it to say, -with the .many,;-we rwould f naturally suppose, when the inherent selfishness of man ia taken ioto considera_j_____ *i ■■';"'! "r' J *T7* v " < "l' ia«ffr—n Would be' levied 'biL the wealthy audi by; j.direct methods r so that iherei should- be no -from, it. But the protectionist. Jlelitsion comes to the aid of "the wealthy minority, and under the guise of protection /to native industry and ample employment for the labourer and the artisaD, it induces the poorer notwithstanding their possession' of all political power, to adopt a 'plan? of taxation which shall greatly relieve wealth to the detriment of labour, In accordancei with this wei are told that the tax, which is a tax upon wealth, if ever; there was one, must not, cannot be increased, but that the Customs duties, which; are mainly jlaxea nponlabouTr,'ire increased. W« i_ways strive to Took at public' questions impartially and fmsi_fkji 0i class' bias,' and while anxious to: do all that lies in our •power for the amelioration of- the condition of those classes ;w_ho live by the sweat; bfjtbsir brows, we are no friends t6 any scheme' for. the excessive or vindictive taxatiqa *pf v fee. wealthy; We firmly beheve that any attempt to make 7 a raid upon the wealthy for revenue purposes would, in the long run, injure the working classes as much as those who are thus plundered. ißut, nevertheless,, if we are to have half-a-million of extra taxation imposed upon us, we say that it will be a monstrous injustice it it is to be raised by Customs duties from %hose who are here, and who : by the labour of ttheir hands., and : brains are helping on the work of colonisation.. The property tax, however, cannot be increased. , It■•iai' already a severe burden upon-enterprise of all sorts, fcraU those-who pay property tax are not wealthy, and even the wealthy are, in this country, as heavily taxed.as it is possible to tax them without compelling them to fly from our shores. We cannot, indeed, submit to any further taxation, direct or indirect. But we only wish that the Government, if they propose fresh taxation, will propose it in some direct form, for then their proposals would be most promptly rejected.

. The attempt is made to reconcile us to an increase of Customs duties, not only on the ground that it is indirect, and therefore insensible, taxation, but also on the ground that it will afford protection to native industry. We have repeatedly pointed out that it is impossible to hare duties which shall produce revenue and at the same time protect native' industry. Mr, Bichasdsoh-, in _ B attempt to justify the Government proposals for an increase of the tariff, with characteristic simplicity, gave a striking illustration of the truth of this contention. He said that it was necessary to increase the duties be-' cause they had fallen off _ fallen off, not because of diminished consumption of dutiable articles, but because of increase of local manufactures. That is to say, the duties are now sufficiently high to be protective, therefore, in so far as- they are protective, they have ceased to be revenue-pro-ducmg." He showed by .Jsgures that some years ago, before>,'£_atain .large increasea were made in the tariff, it produced as much or more revenue than it does now, notwithstanding the great increase of population and consumption. The moral was that the more duties are increased, the less

revenue ia produced. Tbe man of j ordinary common-sense would say that after such an experienced-it isl by a redaction and not by an increase of duties that we she^M.'- expect--to get morereveirde. Do xitotfet us delude ourselves with''the idea that any mora revenue is to be obtained permanently by a large increase of Customs duties on articles, which can be produced here.. If we are to have protective 'duties, do -jnot let us impose them under tbe belief that they will produce much revenue. High duties mean little revenue, and low duties mean large revenue. But whether the duties be high or low they mean taxation, which presses most heavily upon*-tbe man of small means and large family, and under which the burden upon him, as a private indi-vidual,-is-tar greater than the benefit which, as a member of- tbe body politic, he derives by the increase of the revenue. other words, Customb duties take from the consumer a great deal more than they put into the Exchequer.