ABOLITION OF GOLD DUTY.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2097, 23 September 1875, Page 2

ABOLITION OF GOLD DUTY.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.) Sib, —On this subject your contemporary this morning states that those persons who telegraphed to Mr O'Connor at Wellington, "truly" represent the opinions of the miners here. I beg leave to siate that I most emphatically deny that assertion, and also affirm that the very parties referred to have very little sympathy with miners any further than such sympathy would save their own interests. I wi<h to state that it is my opinion that there is no intelligent man who is entitled to the name of miner thai does not approve of the conduct of Sir G., Grey in trying to have this infernal tax abolished. I have noticed that for years past the Advertiser has been crying out against the iniquity of this tax and most imperiously demanding to have ie abolished. Then why does it assume the atttitude in this matter that it does ia this morning's leading article ? Are the reasons it has given for so doing honest and just ? I believe that they are not, and that this " ratting" from the interests of the miners is because Sir Ct. Grey having moved in the matter they

•re bound to oppose - him. - However, taking aa granted that those reasons are just ones: it is ndmi tied that the tax itself is unjust, but inasmuch, as the duty falls principally on the banks and mining companies here, it should be retained so as to make such persons pay that revenue to the country which they should pay, and which otherwise without this tax they would not pay—that is, you retain an unjust tax on a whole class of people so as to make a few persons contribute their just share of the revenue of the country. In fact, in an unjust manaer you want to do a just thing. To say the least, this is abominable legislation. There are other reasons which remind xne of Dargaville's logical reasons for putting the five per cent, tax on gum, but as this latter tax was immediately and ignominiously repealed, so ought the former one to hare ■■been abolished long tgo. Besides, the Thames does not comprise all the goldfields in the colony, and if the so-called miners on the Thames do not so much feel this obnoxious tax, that is no valid or just reason why we should compel a man or miner in other places •who may get a quarter or half an ounce of gold a day to hare to pay 2s 6d per oz duty on it.

The advocacy for the retention of the gold duty is petty, selfish, and illogical.. If there are persons in companies who will benefit by its abolition, and thereby escape payipg that portion of taxation which they justly should pay, why not in any goldfield measure that may be passed in the Assembly insert a clause that would compel such persons to pay their right; proportionate share ? I have been perhaps more than an individual opponent of this iniquitous tax in the Australian Colonies nearly since it became the law of the country tbere until it was finally to be about abolished. I still hold that here also it is a most unjust impost on a class of deserving persons, and trust that Sir George Grey will earn the gratitude of the miners of New Zealand by having it abolished.—l am, &c, • " ■'■■.-• ■ •■■" ' ■ A" MINEB. Thames, Sept, 23rd, 1875.