Untitled

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVII, Issue 3114, 3 February 1871, Page 2

Referring to our report elsewhere of the speech delivered by Mr i 1 ravers at the hustings, we must premise by affirming that with respect to the Customs Tariff it sets forth the very words he employed. The extraordinary assertion made by Mr Traveis that the proposed alterations in the tariff were made solely for raising an increased revenue, and, that they were all increases and no decreases, naturally called forth an emphatic contradiction. The financial statement which Mr Travers fiddle-de-deed is very explicit on the point, and read thus — "Ministers are of opinion that the aggregate of taxation cannot be increased with advantage, but that in many cases taxation ought to be raised. What 1 submit is this : we want to raise a certain amount of revenue, and it is highly expedient that the revenue should be derived in that manner best calculated to stimulate local production. If imports must be taxed, let those escape lightly which cannot be produced here, and let those which need not be imported, but which wealthy persons choose to consume, be made to jield a a revenue. We do not ask for extensive changes : we ask you to put a tax on some articles and to take it off others. The total revenue will not be raised much, so that we still continue to. make revenue requirements our guide." The small farmers whose case Mr Travers so feelingly deplores, and advocates against the " monied clients" of Messrs Hunter and Pearce were accordingly la be benefited by an increased duty on what they could raise and a decreased duty on certain articles, such as bags and woolpacks, iron fencing, gates, &c, which they require. The principal articles on which additional duty was put was bacon and hams, beef and pork, butter, cheese, potted meats, jams, flour, wheat, barley, maize, and oats. The effect of the alterations as a whole is thus summed up in the financial statement : — " Inconsequence of this arrangement I estimate that for the year, the change in ! the tariff may yield some £5000 additional revenue, whilst next year the change will be calculated to rather reduce than increase the receipts. It will bo observed that in respect to the general and popular uses of the articles which we subject to change the reductions not unfavorably compare with the increases." It is positively astonishing to think that Mr Travers should have made such an assertion, und still more astonishing that he should have expected it to be believed.