THE DREADNOUGHT OFFER.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14977, 24 April 1909, Page 10

THE DREADNOUGHT OFFER.

CONGRATULATIONS FROM MAN-

CHESTER. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 23. The Lord Mayor of Manchester has cabled to the Prime Minister:—" At a banquet at the Manchester Town Ja.all, celebrating the first anniversary of the Manchester Importers and Exporters Association, founded 0:1 tho suggestion made in your speech when the colonial Premiers visited Manchester, it was resolved to send a cable message congratulating vou on New Zealand's patriotic and handsome offer of a Dreadnought to the British Government." TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Now that we are going to give one (or possible 2-12 dozen) Dreadnoughts to the British Government, how to pay for them will be tho next consideration. Various correspondents have advocated increaso in taxation, but the cheapest tax collected of all is via the Customs duty, and if this was increased a/little it would not materially harm ttie public. If tea was again placed on the list at (id per lb this would yield roughly £170,000, and the increased duty would not be felt-very seriously. To go back again to the id per lb on sugar would yield another £230,000. Then with regard to kerosent, if a duty was placed on this of, say, 6d per gallon, as formerly, the general public would contend that they would have to bear the increase, but it is a matter of contention whether the Oli Trust, which controls the kerosene in this dominion, could afford to advance the price correspondingly, as they havo big opponents in tho various gas companies, and they have to keep the price of kerosene within reasonable bounds', through fear of the gas competition. If 6d per gallon was placed en kerosene it would yioid, roughly, £91,500, and it is questionable whether the public would have to pay.a great deal more for tho article than they do now, for the reasons specified above. Beer duty could be increased 50 per cent, which would bring in an additional £14,000 over and above that now collected, as 3d per gallon is a very small duty -on beer. The duty on tobacco, which at present brings in a little over half a million a year, could stand a slight increase, which would bring in another £20,000. The increases advocated above would mean an additional £525,000 to the revenue yearly, and this, collected for a few years, would extinguish the total cost of our gift to Britain. No doubt a number of people will strenuously oppose increased taxation by way of Custom's duties, but the lines advocated above do not touch very deeply on the food supply of tho masses, and the Government could collect the increased duty with very little outlay. We should make this generation pay for our gift, and not saddle the next with it—lorn, etc., PAYCASH. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —As a citizen of Christchurch and a reader of your paper I wish to protest against the unfair reporting which you have indulged in lately concerning the Taylor-Dreadnought affair. Everything on one side has been bad. while everything that has been said and done on the side you are championing is absolutely right. What lopsidod, unfair tactics. Did you not state that the crowd outside Mr Taylor's meeting would have carried a resolution in favour of the Premier's action? I was one of that crowd, and 1 kept my mouth shut and my ears open. Your reporter was only guessing, on the right side, of course. From what I could hear a large majority of that crowd was in favour of. Mr Taylor's spirited action. Let your reporters get among the people, the powerful, democratic workers, and quietly ask them thoir opinion. If your reporters report fairly you will learn something that will surprise you. Concerning the Lyttelton meeting, the result was a forefone conclusion, for an obvious reason, lad Mr Taylor been an opponent of the canal that resolution would not have been carried without dissent. The crowd went there to applaud everything. Had I been there when the lady asked the citizens of the grep.t British Empire to look down the pages of a thousand years of history and consider them for a " moment," I should have applauded, too. You think that the Premier's party will endorse his action. Of course they will. Twist all their vertebral columns into one and you would not get a backbone like Tommy Taylor's. Sir Joseph Ward has offered one Dreadnought, two if necessary, giving them away as tho late Queen gave . the chocolate boxes, borrowing millions off the Jews with one hand and giving it back to them with the other. Yet-, when we protest we are caller pro-Boers and German Sausages by a lot of yelling High School cadets. Why, a good navvy with a pick could kill a regiment of them 111 ten minutes. When they have seon as many soldiers' graves as I have they will understand bettor what Kipling meant when ho wrote about killing Kruger with your mouth. In conclusion, I ask my old naval comrades if they are still satisfied with the death-traps which the Defence Department calls forts. If they aro not, let them consider what four millions would accomplish in that lino.—l am, etc., CROSS GUNS. TO THE EDITO* Sir,—Judging by Mr David Bates's effusion in your issue of April 22. the prevailing depression: seems at last to have affected the legal profession. It is sincerely to be hoped that we shall bo spared the spectacle of seeing any of the members of the legal profession busying themselves in the pcttv details of parochial politics. Mr l3atos seems to be bent on organising a week's campaign against Mr Taylor with all tho ardour characteristic of the Salvation Army during self-denial week, or of Mr Powell during the era of soup kitchens in Christchurch. No doubt Mr Bates's scheme for holding meetings for which admission shall be by ticket only will be a huge success. He is to ho congratulated on so faithfully pursuing tho plan adopted by tho Rev William Thomson for securing a favourable vote. It is a pity Mr Bates does not give the public some faint idea of who aro at the bottom of this league of his, or of this protest committee. Even his chairman seems ashamed to declare his, name, as all correspondence must bo addressed to that functionary, care of Mr Bates; or is it that Mr Bates is himself horse, cart and little dog under tho ' waggon? It is devoutly to be hoped that when Mr Taylor, signs Mr Bates's suitably-lvorded retraction, tho public and the Government will' recognise in some effective manner Mr Bates's sacrifice for his "duty'and lovaltv." What would be wrong with tho Hon D. Bates, or his Honor }!r Justice Bates? Meanwhile, in tho possible event of Mr T. E. Taylor not signing the anolofzv, Mr Bates mi'-lit concern himself with tho promotion of a Bill for weeding out superfluous lawyers.—l am, etc., ANTI-HUMBUG.