The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1876-07-08
The Proposed Revenue Changes.

To the Elitor Of The Pacific Commercial Advertiser;
SIR: As a rule, L do not reply TO anonymous let
ters; but having had the temerity TO criticize the
proposed revenue changes, and having so brought
down on myself the wrath Of an anonymous writer
in the last number Of your paper, feel that ] must
at any rate stand to my poor spiked gun.
In my former communication, i did not perhaps
sufficiently notice whether | had gloves on or not,
but ] claim whatever credit there may be in hay
ing taken off my hood.
1t is a satisfaction to me TO know, that in pro-
pounding my views, ! have but contributed TO the
object of the Minister OF Finance in presenting the
plans OF the government 10 the House in advance
Of any Acts TO carry them out. But II Y. has au-
thority for that statement, he has none for the fol-
lowing one, that "Mr. Davies observed that Minis
tiers have had ample time to consider these gues-
TONS Mr.. Davies said nothing wilfully imperti-
nent in his letter and unless this idea Of /" ample
time" originated with X, know not where ii came
responsible for il.
My championship Of cl~ergymen, teachers and
others, Is I" seen through" and l must be content
to be set down as a bypocrite. But that does not
alter the position Of my clients; and I respectfully
ask Y. the following question:
suppose l know a family left dependent upon
the interest Of S2O,000-say $500 per annum; is
it right to take from that poor income 500 as is
now done, or $500 as is now proposed TO be done,
and to let all the officers of government, all the
clerks, and all the managers Of estates in the land
go free! An agent may borrow that $4,000 and
advance 1t to planters who pay him In interest
and commission 8 per cent. over the 8 per cent.
the agent pays. The planter again uses the money
on his plantation, and makes perhaps 10 per cent.
more than be pays the agent. Thus without trac-
ing the $4,000 any further. there are three profits
made: the planters 10 per cent. $1,000; the agents
8 per cent, $1,000; the lenders . per cent, $500;
$4,000. Now under an income tax, these three
would contribute according 10 my schedule $50,
SIG and Sl9. in oil S64 but under the present
property tax, the first two would pay nothing, and
the last would pay 500, aud under the head Of
lenders, you would find all such households as /
"a 70 Haz0rihpds tUhnua hraaI uuf,nar ,rA- a
dead or disabled, and whose capital had 20 be
given into the hand Of come one better able 10
battle with the world.
Il eau be only matter Of speculation as to where
the remissions and additions Of duty shall fall.
My own belief is that very little Of the 10 per cent
on dry goods, -four and bread -stufs. will reach the
consumer, and that all the Is per cent additions
will reach him. Many Of the articles in the free
list are not articles of household consumption, and
! give you a list of those which I think will be
cheaper to the ordinary householder " preserved
meat, hams. refined sugar, boots and shoes, furni-
ture, kerosene oil, ardware and wOodenware."
| DO not think there will be any reduction ia the
retail price Of beef, vegetables, cotton goods, or
soap.
On the other hand the following necessaries
will be raised IN price sugar, rice, tea, mems.
wOmen's and children's clothing, hats and caps,
hosiery, small-wares' c~rockeTy' glassware med
icines, and brushes"
/ have endeavored to compile my lists fairly,
and | think they will bear examination. and ia
my opinion the additions will far outweigh the
remissions, and the " immense balance not be
found, as y. thinks, in favor Of the bousekeeper.
| have not taken into account that if my clergy
mems congregations, and my pupils parents are
to have their pockets full Of money, wages must
rise, as they probably will. | venture to differ
with y. also on the item Of ready made clothing.
1t may be true that Sll 900. divided amongst all
the men, women and children in the islands, would
give 90 cents - each, but as the item cannot
seriously affect women or children or the whole
Of the men and boys. we must ascertain in some
other way the probable incidence Of the duty. II
a man requires two suits CT clothes, two hats.
besides shirts and Underclothing every year, aud
can buy them for $50, he is economical. Assum-
ing the original cost to be $40, aud the present
duty 81, the proposed addition will be SO, which
the weaTer must pay, and II is incorrect 20
assume that il can be divided amongst 30 people
paying 20 cents each. In the same way, a tax on
musical instruments if divided, would be inHnit-
esimal, but when it comes 10 the form of $25, TO
be paid by some gOyerness who happens 10 need
a piano for her lessons = viii he 4 more serious
item,
Upon reflection, I fear any FIRST objection 20 the
government plan is true, and y. says that If true
it is serious.
Y. sneers at ne ios " pOking forward clergy
men, teachers, and families with fixed incomes,
but does not otherwise notice them except TO
swallow them up in the easily mislpplied quota
ton OF IS the greatest good 10 the greatest num-
ber.' But if / am correct 10 my theory, and any
word Of mine can help 10 render the Injustice
apparent. 1 shall not leave that wcrd unspoken
for fear of any taunt,
/ will now leave the sentimental part Of lay
subject, with which my assailant has so little
aud discuss the policy. first OF the !
tariff, and then of the property tax. n
regard the tariff as z revenue measure, and
not as Intentionally protective: and If nm in