INCONGRUITIES OF THE TARIFF.

Otago Witness, Issue 658, 9 July 1864, Page 4

INCONGRUITIES OF THE TARIFF.

One of the most remarkable exemplifications of the absurdity of the existing New Zealand Tariff is to be found in what may aptly be termed the great hat question We say it is the most remarkable, because it is most patent to ocular demonstration. Our old friend Punch haa had many a hearty fling at the "unsightly chimney pots,' 1 as it irreverently terms the " best silk hats" of the nineteenth century. But satire — although the most potent of weapons— has utterly failed to persuade European mankind that a section of a steam funnel is nofc the most appropriate shape for the decoration of the human head. The legislators of New Zealand are wiser in'their day and generation, By their ingenious tariff they have utterly abolished the hat proper, and the thanks of a hat-less people are eminently due to them. Four shillings per cubic foot being the trifling amount levied on a\l n such fabric*,, the luxury of wearing an uncomfortable headdress is dispensed with by our economical citizens, and fancy rides riot in less expensive, because more compressible modes of head-gear. From the very " wide-awake" of His Honor the Superintendent, to the occasional glengarry of the Gold Fields Secretary, and the mountainously piled -up "notions" of Cobb's drivers, what a wilderness of hats do our streets present Occasionally a veritable " bell-topper" does indeed tower above the throng in solitary magnificence, but we observe that as a rule the hat proper is only affected by the very smal^f; or the very tallest of men. Extremes meet here as elsewhere. We leave it to the British Association for the advancemeut of Social Science to determine the cause of this peculiar phenomenon, and to draw the inference. In the raeantimewe desire to record our gratitude to our legislators for saving us from the infliction of tall hats. Mercy on us 1 from what a direful calamity have we been preserved through their profound wisdom! If we remember rightly the hat-griev-ance wag brought prominently forward at a public meeting in 1862 by a bright accidental star of legal antecedents, who adduced it as an all-sufficient reason for the Separation of the Middle Island. If no other argument could be found for such an extreme measure, we confess that we should be cordial opponents of Separation; and we have only dilated upon the subject at -all for the purpose of exposing an illogically constructed tariff in one of its most ridiculous features. The system of levying Customs' duties upon merchandise, ia proportion to its cubical measurement, has long since been exploded in all intellectual communities. Scouted from Britain— abolished from the United States, and driven from the Australian Colonies, it has found favor and obtained a footing only in New Zealand. We would fain indulge a hope that when the members of the General Assembly address themselves to the work of practical legislation — and may that time speedily arrive — this obnoxious portion of the Tariff may be expunged from the Statute Book upon which it is now a stigma and a reproach. The process of taxation by measurement operates injuriously on commerce by its manifold practical restrictions, as every trader can bear evidence ; whilst its advo ■ cates— if indeed there are any — cannot avail themselves even of the miserable plea of protection to native industry in its defence. The Brummagem button-makers, who went in procession to George the Third to petition that a law might be enacted against the wearing of cloth buttons, were absolute Solons ia comparison

with our wise men of Gotham. They were influenced by the law of self-preservation ; but the dwellers in New Zealand have no such pretence to urge in justification or extenuation. Our American brethren, who impose heavy duties on textile manufactures, do so for the avowed purpose of protecting their own. But they adopt the value — not the size — of &n article, as the basis of taxation. Here the contrary principle pervades the tariff. We have no hatter 3to protect; yet we levy as great a duty on one hat of the value of twelve shillings as on a dozen wide-awakes worth six pounds. We cannot boast of cotton factories; yet the purchaser of a five-shilling cotton dress is mulcted by the btate in an equal amount with tbe becrinolined wearer of a gorgeous twentyguinea silk, and the commonest calico which is used by our poorer denizens, contributes more to the revenue than the finest cambric that adorns the breast of beauty. In like manner, the gentleman who luxuriates in broadcloth, pays less than the digger, whose nether integuments are double-stitched moles.

Let it not be supposed from the foregoing that we are the advocates of a factitious system of taxation which should pretend to tax only the wealthy. Experience has shown that any attempt of that kind must ever fail in the attainment of its object. But taxation, if wisely adjusted, affects all classes alike in due proportion to their means and expenditure. By the present tariff, such an adjustment is singularly avoided. Bulk being the criterion, and the commoner articles of domestic use being always the bulkiest, it necessarily follows that they who, possessing the least of this world's goods, purchase the coarser and cheaper kind of clothing, are compelled to pay the largest amount of import duty, and it is precisely this inequality that we desire to see rectified.

The tax on hats—whether felt or not— haa only served us as a preliminary illustration. But there are other incongruities in the New Zealand tariff to which we propose to revert hereafter.