THE DUTY ON KEROSENE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9186, 28 April 1893, Page 3

THE DUTY ON KEROSENE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—The suggestion of " Philogynist," which appeared in your issue of Tuesday to abolish the duty on kerosene was certainly to the point, and requires enlarging upon, so that if any tariff reform is contemplated, this article may be specially dealt with. In referring to the Blue Book statistics, I find the revenue derived from duty paid on kerosene consumed in the colony was £35,501 4s, representing 177,507 cases, equal to 1,420,050 gallons, at Gd per gallon. The cost of kerosene landed in New Zealand for the above year was about 9d per gallon, and with the Oil per gallon duty added, the consumer had to pay Is 3d per gallon, that is, GG per cent, above the landed cost. In other words, he had to pay 4s per case extra on account of the duty, for an article absolutely indispensable, and which cannot be produced in the colony. This tax on light must bear heavily on the farmers, the working and poorer classes, who are surely the least able to stand it. The duty in question must have been imposed for revenue purposes, as no kerosene industry is propped up thereby, therefore it should be made as small as possible, but GG per cent, on the cost of a commodity in everyday nan is one of those freaks of protection which "no fellah can understand." Of course, when the colony was hard up the people had to submit to heavy taxation, but now that we have turned the corner, so to speak, and are steadily pursuing the path of progress, it should be the duty of the Government to gradually lessen the burden by reducing the duties on such necessities as tea, sugar, candles, and kesosene. Of course, there are those who object to any tariff tinkering, as they call it ; while the protectionist will fear the closing of the candle factories, and the holder of gas shares will behold visions of diminished dividends. But those who believe that " the greatest good of all" is a sound political axiom, will perceive that in the long run the advantages to be gained by this one reduction of duty" will far outweigh any temporary loss of revenue to the Government and the vested interests mentioned. Some of these advantages are manifest. For instance, a greater consumption of kerosene would necessarily follow a reduction in price, not only for purposes of light but also for cooking, etc., etc. There is. however, a prospective benefit which would accrue to the colony as a whole if the Government removes this oil tax ; it is the probable introduction of our wool into the United States free of duty. It is all very well to anticipate the splendid results that would follow were our American cousins to place wool on the free list, but we must be prepared to act liberally as well, and in no better way can we secure the advantages which free wool would bring to us than by allowing kerosene free. In conclusion, sir, I think the Government should seriously consider the matter not only as a part of their home policy, but also in relation to our "kin across the sea.'"l am, etc., White Rose.