The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, MAY 14, 1887. CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1581, 14 May 1887, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, MAY 14, 1887. CUSTOMS DUTIES.

It is usele?B to discuss the Financial FtatemenUn M»il. We shall refer only to that part of it which proposes to iucrease the Customs dutus. So far as that is concerned we must say that we are not at all satisfied with if, though we recognise that it is a step in the direction we have no persistently advocated for the last six years. It has been framed not with the view of protecting local industries so much as for the purpose of raising revenue, and we hold tUt is wrong. To our mind goods which we cannot produce local'j

ought to be allowed into the colony free, and goods which we can produce in the colony ought to be heavily taxed, so as to give local industries a monopoly of the market. This is not what has been done. The Customs duties have been increased, but it is evideDt the principal object the Colonial Treasurer kept in view while revising the tariff was revenue. To put on duties for revenue purposes is absolutely wrong, because it means taxing the.poor for tho benefit of the ricii. Every one, rich and poor, consumes articles which have paid Customs duties, and through the Customs the poor as well as the rich pay taxes, We hold that it is wrong to compel the poor to pay taxes at all. They are only machines used for the benefit, of property, and property ought to pay all their taxes. Who will stand up and say the " swagger " ought to b« compelled to contribute to the taxes of the country 7 What interest has be in the country T None whatever. He hns not a place whereon to lay his head ; he is a mere tool which the owner of property uses for his own profit, and as his labor 19 indispensible to the property owner, it is unjust and mean to take from him a part of his miserable earnings to pay taxes which are expended for the benefit of property owners, and which property owners ought to pay. To put on Customs duties for revenue purposes is to tax the poor "swagger," and to this we object. He is taxed for any miserable luxury he may indulge in, but the goods which he ought to be employed in manufacturing are admitted free, or at so low a rate that to produce them locally is hopelees. The logical meaning of this is that the poor man is robbed of the means of earning a livelihood,, while at the same time he is taxed to pay interest on the money which has been spent on making railways, etc,, that have enormously increased the value of property. That this is wrong is obvious on the face of it, and therefore it is that we hold it is wrong to put on Customs duties for revenue purposes. Mr jßoileston is a great Freetrader, but he says it is right to put on Customs duties for revenue purposes, which is a roundabout way of saying "It is right to tax the poor." We favor Protection, but we say the poor ought to be exempt from any taxation. Mr Rolleston and other Freetraders would tax the poor, but tbey would not protect their labor from competition with the starving artisans of the Old Countries. The Freetraders would tax the poor man in this colony, but they would go to England, literally speaking, for a pair of boots if they got them sixpence cheaper. Protectionists would tax the poor, but they would give them the making of their boots. Who is the friend of the working man ? The Freetrader who taxeß him, and gets bis boots made in England, or the Protectionist who taxes him and gives him back his money ten-fold by getting his boots made i& New Zealand ? The working man will have no difficulty in answering the question. And now it may be asked, How can we, who do not believe in taxing the poor through the Customs favor protective duties ? The answer is simple. In theory we believe in Freetradß pure and simple. If we were to nurse up our pet theory, and look upon it only from one point of view, till we became monomaniacal on it, as many of the Freetraders are, we should now be advocating the total abolition of Customs duties. But we never allow ourselves to become monomaniacal on anything. We recognise that Freetrade is beautiful in theory, but that if reduced to practice it would ruin this colony. If Customs duties were abolished almost every industry in the colony would have to shut up ; the property tax would be six times what it is at present, and agricultural and pastoral pursuits would not be able to bear it; there would ba no work for working men, and there would be nothing but ruin and misery from end to end of the land. To reduce the colony to such a condition as we have described in order to uphold the theoretical beauties of Freetrade, would be nothing short of madness, and therefore, as a matter ot expediency, as a matter of necessity, as a means of averting National ruin, we favor Customs duties, but we hold that these duties ought to be so levied that goods which we cannot produce ought to come in free, while goods which wa can produce ought to be so taxed that they would be put out of competition with local industries.