298
IS HONGKONG LIGHTLY TAXED?
r
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS.")
SIB-When Sir Matthew Nathan, Sir Frederick Lugard and the Hon. Mr. May are found to concur in the opinion that this Colony is lightly taxed, it may seem like sheer impud- ence on the part of a humble ratepayer like my self to join issue with them on this question.
But with your permission. Sir, I will venture to submit that the opinion that this community is lightly taxed in comparison with the people
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
at Home is ill-considered and unsound.
In his speech at the Legislative Council a few days ago the Hon. Colonial Secretary stated the grounds of the official opinion in these tarms :--- "It was only the other day when I was on leave that I was living in the house of a brother of mine in London. For every £100 of rent that he pays I found be paid no less than 47 golden sovereigns in rates and taxes. That is taxtion with a vengeance! I did not stop there long, and I went down to a very countrified part of England in the County of Suffolk, and in one of its towns--they are pleased to call it a town I would call it a village-I rented a house and lived there for the best part of a year.
I found in that very countrified place that for every £100 rent you paid, you were paying somewhere in the neighbourhood of £25 per annum in rates and taxes. In my native city, Dublin, you have got to pay about £30 in every £100, and these are the tax-payers who would be mulated. "
His Excellency the Governor alluding to these "
very striking figures, expressed the opinion that if anyone takes the trouble to work out the incidence of taxation he would
find that the local taxes bear a strikingly small proportion to what the ratepayer at home bas to pay.
I think very many ratepayers in this Colony, with Home experience behind them, will, if they take the trouble to work it out, arrive at the conclusion that they are paying twice as much in rates in this Colony as they would pay in any town in England or Ireland. An argument based upon the statement that we are paying here but 13 per cent in taxes while in England we would have to pay from 25 to 50 per cent, is, I consider, fallacions.
One may get in any residential district in the county of London a dwelling house of five or six rooms for £40 or £50 a year plus rates and taxes. In many districts you can get good houses for less. A few years ago I myself had a five-roomed house not five miles out from the City, for which I paid £30 a year, plus rates and taxes, which brought the total to about £40 per annum. Here in Hongkong the equal of that house is not to be had for less than £150 a year plus rates and taxes.
I am at the present time living in premises smaller and without many of the conveniences of my £30 a year house in London, and I am paying for the accommodation at the present rate of ex- change about £140 a year plus £20 rates
I submit that I am paying in Hongkong twice as much in rates and taxes for imperis! and local administrative purposes as I should be required to pay in London on similar premises -and this notwithstanding that London has a heavy poor rate which Hongkong has not.
Give the people of Hongkong houses to live in at rentals equal to those which obtain in London and other parts of England and they will cheerfully consent to an increase in the percentage of taxation, but until we have those conditions I say again that it is an utterly fallacions line of reasoning which reaches the conclusion that because we pay ouly 13 per cent here in rates while the people of England pay from 25 to 47 per cent, that we are therefore lightly taxed.
When we consider and realise how heavily the burden of the excessive rentals presses upon the residents of this Colony, I think it will be generally agreed that the government would not be likely to improve its finances by in- creasing the taxation.—Yours, &o.
BATEPAYER.
The total receipt into the Treasury between January 1st and July 31st were $7.865 333.17; the total payments ontamounted to $7,953,510.58. There is therefore an excess of payments over receipts of $88,177,41,
THE TRIAL OF ADSETTS.
The trial of Adsetts on the capital charge was continued before Mr. C. D. Melbourne at the Police Court on October 4th, when Mr. and Mr. R. Harding appeared for the accused, G. E. Morrell, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted who followed the proceedings very closely and occasionally scribbled notes on paper which he
handed to his solicitor.
Hotel, said he remembered Angust 3rd. On Lan Shing, baggage clerk at the Hongkong that day about 11 o'clock he sent coolies to Blake Pier to fetch some passengers' luggage from the Eastern. It daly arrived and was placed in the hall where it remained for about half an hour. About noon & European came to the counter and spoke to the clerk. The latter gave instructions to one of the boys to show the European to hig room. The European said “Have my luggage taken to my room. This was done, witness marking the luggage 184, the number of the room sssigned to the European. Witness pro duced the luggage book, in which he had entered the name of the European from the register.
Would you know the luggage again ?- Approximately I would.
The four pieces of luggage were brought in. Witness said the trunk produced was like the one that the European had, but it looked newer now. He recognised two pieces because they still bore chalk marks 184 the number of the
room.
Can you identify the man ?--No. Cross-examined-Do you remember the names of the other guests who arrived by the Eastern?
-No.
Chan Leang, house coolie, Hongkong Hotel, said he remembered the 3rd Angust last when he was told by the room boy to bring some luggage up from the office to room 181. He recognised the boxes and bags in court as part of those which he handled on that occasion.
Next day he was ordered to carry out one of the trunka. He did so depositing it in the lift. Before this he had carried up a camphor wood box from the office into the room, He would know the box again. Witness identified exhibit F as the box. The guest accompanied him to the lift when he took the box down, The guest was the man in the dock.
Mr. Morrell But you did not recognise him in gaol?—No.
Mr. Harding-Why could you not recognise him in gaol ?
Witness-I could not see him clearly Why could you not see him clearly?-There were too many people about.
Is it not because he is in the dock and no one
else there? Had I been in the dook you would have said I was the man ?—Yes,
Would you not have said I was the man if I had been in the dook.?—It was not you.
I know it was not. What difference is there. between myself and the accused?-He is taller,
Is that all ?—Yes.
Will you swear that was the identical camphor wood box you carried up on 4th August and no other P-Yes.
Why do you swear it?-I know it because I carried it up.
Witness declared he had not carried up any other luggage on the 3rd August.
Ip Sai, house coolie, Hongkong Hotel, spoke to having assisted the previous witness to carry a trunk from room 184 to the lift. There was a
Europ an accompanying and he went down in the lift with the trunk. The trunk in court was "approximate" to the one he carri-d.
Cross-examined-He could not remember what other luggage was brought up to the fifth floor on Augast 3rd because there was so much of it. Не remembered the
(October 14, 1907.
he was going and the latter told him to get two coolies to take a box to Butter eld and Swire. The coolies carried the box out. The European went with them. He recognised the trunk in court as the one in question, only it was not so new when he saw it before. He res`gnised the accused as the European,
Did you pick him out in gsol ?--I told the Inspector the defendant resembled the man.
Loi Yan, street coolie, stated that between 11 a.m. and noon on August 4th he was engaged by a clerk in the Hongkong Hotel. Another man was engaged with witness. They carried a box from the Hongkong Hotel to the office of Messrs. Butterfield & Swire. While at the hotel they were told to follow prisoner. The trunk in Court was the box witness and the other man carried. Accused engaged a riochs. On arrival at Messrs. Butterfield & Swire's the box was placed inside near the stairs. Accused told witness and his friend to wait, and he went upstairs. After waiting about half an hour prisoner came down, paid them, got On September into a ricsha and went away. 25th, at the jail, witness picked out the prisoner from among ten other men.
Cross-examined-Witness
W88 asked to attend at the jail to identify an Englishmao, He was not told what the man had done, but was asked to identify the person for whom he carried the trunk before the Court.
Do you recollect carrying any luggage on August 3rd ?--I did not carry any on that day.
Weren't you told the man you were required to identify was a tall European? -No one told
me.
The hearing was adjourned.
The trial of Adsetts on the ospital charge wis continued before Mr. C. D. Melbourne at the Police Court on October 7th, when Mr. G. E. Morrell, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted and Mr. R. Harding appeared for the accused, who followed the proceedings very closely and occasionally had interviews with his solicitor.
H. W. Kent, shipping clerk in the employ of Messrs, Butterfield and Swire, said that he usually visited the office on Sunday morning, On August 4th he was at the office when ́ su American called and said he wished to senti a box by the steamer “Singan" to Hothow the following morning. The box was left down- stairs. It was a Saratoga trunk like that produced. The American, who gave his name as F. Jackson, said the box was to be ad- dressed to A. H. Jacques, Hoihow.
It was customary to ask the shipper full details but in this case the man said the addresses was expecting the trunk and would enquire for it at the office of the company's agent. He asked witness to send it off at once bot witness replied that it would go off in the ordinary course. The man seemed satisfied and left after getting the necessary documents.
Did you notice the man at all?—Yes.
Could you describe him?-He was tall, about 5ft 10, clean shaven and fair, dressed in dark grey tweed clothes, and had a brown slouch hat. de spoke with a distinot American accent.
Can you identify the man ?- It is doubtful. You failed to identify the man in the gaol ?---- Yes.
Did you see any more of him after he left on 4th August ?-He returned in about an hour and said he wished to change the destination from Hoihow to Sydney, and to send the box next day by the “Chingto,”
What did you do P-I thought it extraor- dinary and asked him why he wished to change the destinati n so soon.' He said it would be more cbavenient to have the box sont thern, as
the addresses would eventually go to Australia.
Do you issue the papers ?—I agreed to make the necessary alteration and told him to return on Monday morning at office hours. He left the offios.
Did he give you back the papers for the “ Bingan " ?—No, he kept them.
luggage for room 184 as the boy sent him for it There was nothing particular in the four pieces of luggage which enabled him to identifying was the box there?-No.
them.
Can you recognise the European ?-Not quite.
Mr. Harding-What does he mean? The question was repeated, and witness answered No.
A hall porter in the Hongkong Hotel spoke to seeing on the 4th August à European talking' to the clerk. Witness asked the European where
When you got to the office on Monday morn-
Were the papers for the “Singan ” there ?---- Yes, they were handed to me by a Chinese shipping clerk.
Cross-examined. –Do you remember the exact time this man esme in on Sunday morning ?
No, it was about 10 o'clock.
Did you make any note in writing of this change of destination of the box-? You remember it P-Ye
Page 10Page 11