ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1304, 11 June 1880, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

tfV P AITCHISON AND THE PROJ*®- PERTY TAX. jO IBS EMTOE OF THE OAMARU HAIL. j do not hope to be able to con.ce jj r . Aitchison. Bat, in order that Sat gentleman's blundering mis-concep-and explanations may not lead to Lje impressions in other quarters, I will *!pe a t what I have said at most of my coantry meetingß regarding the matter to «hich Mr. Aitchison has referred- In ,-eaking of the tax I said, "It is difficult to glean what are the intentions of tha Government regarding the Property mX Act. The Act provides that agnculHrtai implements in actual use shall be -rtrfnpt from taxation. What does this JLn? Does it mean that if the assessor fannens to visit a district when the gram £ Sowing, the fanners are to be taxed on tWr ploughs, harrows, reapers, &c.! .Sua is one of the numerous difficulties which occur in the Act. Bat whatever ma y be the intention of the Government noflr 1 would remind you of the fact that w hen the Bill was first introduced it provided that all agricultural implements g&oold be taxed, whether in use or not. It only after a severe struggle in Parliament against this enormity that the Government reluctantly gave way, and agreed to the compromise that' agricultural implements not in actual use* should be taxed. This attempt to tax the implements of the agriculturists is one of the liberal acts of a pseudo-liberal party." Is this explanation what Mr. Aitchison 1 I don't think it is. Bat whether that gentleman be satisfied or not, the electors are not likely to be swayed by his attempted hair-splitting, or by remarks ■which are evidently induced by personal pique, and of which it may be said that «thev are as clear as mud." —I am, Ac., 3 G. Joxes.