A CHALLENGE TO MR W. P. REEVES.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8650, 27 November 1893, Page 5

A CHALLENGE TO MR W. P. REEVES.

[By Mr John Holmes.]

Mr Reeves stated on Friday night that it was absolutely untrue that under the Land and Income Tax Act, as amended last sessiou, a man who had a hotel worth £20,000 standing,upon land worth £2000 would have to pay yearly direct taxes to the Government of only JZ3, and asserted he would have to pay £82 10s. Mr Reeves also asserted that a man owning town real property worth £50,000 —say a factory standing on land worth £4000 or £5000—or having £50,000 invested upon mortgages in land would not, nnder the same Act as amended, be let off all progressive taxes. I say that Mr Reeves is wrong in both cases, and that he is shamefully ignorant of the laws he helps and is paid to make. No wonder they are bad. I challenge Mr Reeves to put our differences of opinion to the following test; the questions to be submitted to Messrs Stout, Heaketh and Stringer (the Grown Prosecutor appointed by Mr Reeves.) If a majority decide against mc I shall pay the fees of ail, and stand publicly convicted of being an ignoramus. If a majority decide against him, then he is to stand publicly convicted oi being an ignoramus, and totally unfit for the position ha held*.