THE Marlborough Express SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 1868.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 133, 29 August 1868, Page 2

THE Marlborough Express

SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 1868.

“ Givk me the liberty to know, to utter, and to ergua ireely according to conscience, above all other liberties.” —Milton.

We recently endeavored to point out some of the fallacies of the present mode of raising Revenue by means of Customs Duties, which we condemned as unfair and unjust, especially to the laboring classes, who have consequently to bear the principal part of the burden of Taxation—a system, which our Auckland contemporary, the Herald, appeared rather anxious to defend. How as we conceive that it is the duty of a journalist, under certain conditions, to be both the leader and the exponent of public opinion, we shall again take up the subject of Taxation, believing it to be one on which the general public is very ill-informed, and to which it is especially desirable that public attention should be directed. The present state of Hew Zealand is such as to make every thinking man pause, and ask “ How long is this to last 1” We all know that a Government can do nothing without money ; at the same time we find that very few people like to put their hands in their pockets, and—to use a colonial phrase—“ shell out.” It is important therefore, that a correct knowledge of Taxation ; its necessity, its bearings, and general operation should be widely diffused through all classes of society. It has been accepted as an axiom that “ The subjects of every State ought to contribute to the support of the Government, as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities ; that is to.say, in proportion to the Revenue they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality, or inequality of Taxation.” As all Governments are established for the purpose of securing justice to the governed, it follows as a necessary inference, that one of their primary duties is, strict attention to the justice or equality of the laws by which the revenues of the State are provided. The sapient writer in the Herald asserted that “ Customs Duties are the fairest taxes the State can levy,” and giving as a reason for such opinion, “ because we pay them imperceptibly, we don’t see the tax-gatherer at the door.” Oh! most potent reasoning, most grave and overpowering logic!—in the words of Shakespere—“not knowing we are robbed, we are not robbed at all.” In 1842, Sir Robert Peel told the House of Commons that they had reached the limits of Taxation on articles of consumption ; and if he had room to make that assertion, and to advise a reduction of the tariff, surely we have reason to look our position in the face, and seek some remedy for the high prices of the necessaries of life, the depression of trade, and falling wages; and especially the inequality of the burdens of the State. In our former article we pointed out some of the inequalities of the tax on the necessaries of life. It is but begging the question to say that certain articles are not necessary to man’s existence. The habits of civilization have created wants which were unknown to our ancestors, and many of the articles, now daily used by the poorest as common necessaries, would have taken their places among the luxuries ot the rich, even a hundred years ago; we cannot expect the laboring classes, more than any other class, to forego, the enjoyment of certain articles of consumption, merely because the oracle of the Herald, or the will of ignorant legislators, proclaim them luxuries, with the covert insinuation that the poor have no right to possess, or enjoy them. If the principles enunciated by Adam Smith are founded on truth—namely, that “ the tax which each individual is bound to pay, ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, and the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the cou-

tributor, and to every other person,”—we venture to affirm that it is impossible to carry' it into effect, under a system of Indirect Taxation. “An injudicious tax,” says the same authority, “ offers a great temptation to smuggling.” Consequently, the certainty of individual responsibility is destroyed, and “by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which might have been derived by the employment of their capital.” So long as any tax is unwisely levied, the injustice of its bearing will blind the immorality of its evasion, from even the most respectable and well-informed members of society. What then must be its effects on the poor and ignorant! The imposition of a heavy, or restrictive duty on spirits or tobacco, on moral grounds, is, in the present state of society, absurd ; the taste for these articles is so widely spread, that their use has become almost universal, and to many, especially where engaged in the hardships incident to colonial life, a positive necessity. Their actual value, free of duty, being proportionately small, they have been for years the special objects of the professed smuggler, and the demoralising influence of illicit production, and contraband trade, has, in our opinion, been greater than the.evils produced by the legitimate use of the articles named. So far from agreeing with the Herald that the unconscious process of tax-paying is a good, we denounce it as a positive evil. It induces a carelessness on the part of the payers, and a certain laxity in using the funds so raised, on the . part of the payees. When we feel the money going out of our pockets, we are more likely to look sharply after an equivalent return, and to watch with a jealous eye, the expenditure of that revenue, to which we are all compelled to subscribe.