Hence the value of those documents is impaired, for, I presume that here as elsewhere it is desirable and convenient that parties protesting should know against what they protest. Thus a great portion of both the Memorial and Protest is really irrelevant, and directed against a proposal which I do not make, and which I never did intend to make.
Still through both documents runs a line of argument applicable to any Schedule of Stamp Duties, viz.: the argument that the finances of the Colony exhibit no deficiency of a permanent character--and, if they do, that a Stamp Duty is not the best mode of meeting it.
Before dealing with these points I must advert to one assertion of the Memorialists--who affirm that "though the proposed Stamp Act was originally given out to be merely a temporary measure to provide for the alleged deficit of 1867 it appears" from a subsequent statement by me that $120,000 "is fixed as a yearly addition to the Colonial Revenue to be derived from the new Duty."
I regret that such an assertion should be made so lightly, as it almost imputes a breach of faith to the Government for which there is not the shadow of a foundation. I recall to your recollection that on the 25th July I laid before you a statement of the financial position of the Colony and having shown that there had been for some years "an annually increasing deficiency"--I stated it was impossible to permit its continuance, and that there were two modes of dealing with it--by diminishing your Expenditure or increasing your Revenue. I gave reasons for preferring the latter course, and my intention to ensure such result by a permanent increase of Revenue was obvious from the context, and especially from my recommending a Stamp Duty, the least likely of all taxes to be introduced for one year only. It so happens however that I left no room for mere inferences. I put an end to all doubt by subsequently adding the words "whilst I come before you with estimates necessarily exhibiting a large deficit and a deficit, which there is no reasonable hope of soon seeing disappear, I rely on your finding permanent funds to meet that deficiency, &c., &c., &c."
To assert in spite of such plain language that I gave out the Stamp Act to be merely a "temporary measure to provide for the alleged deficiency of 1867"--is therefore, to say the least of it, very illogical.
Reverting however to the general argument against the necessity for any permanent addition to our Revenue---which forms a most legitimate ground for discussion--I cannot too strongly impress on you that almost the whole case for the Stamp Duty depends on the expediency and necessity of keeping up the usual Expenditure in the Surveyor General's department. Strike that off and you can balance your Revenue and Expenditure at once. No other items are capable of reduction in the same degree, because even closing the Mint to-morrow would not bring you back the large sums sunk in starting it, and as shown by the Estimates, would only save $20,000 in 1867--its supposed cost over receipts during that year. Now a saving of $20,000 does not give you $120,000, the sum required to square your account, and neither I nor this Council are at liberty to take such action, nor would as yet be justified in closing the Mint--a step premature and undesirable, till we know what profit it can realise by the subsidiary coinage, a process just commenced and on which the profits are larger and expenses smaller than in coining dollars.
The main question however, preliminary to imposing any taxation, is whether for several years to come there is any fair probability of the usual Expenditure and the ordinary Revenue of the Colony balancing one another in the natural course of events. I venture to say that no one has given such details on this point as would justify us in adopting such a conclusion.
It is true that on all sides there is a very creditable willingness expressed to meet all necessary Expenditure. So far, so well, but the moment the items of Expenditure are mentioned, there is an immediate onslaught on them and a declaration that some are unnecessary, and that others may be put off, whilst for the remainder it is better to borrow money at "8 per cent," or to double your Police and other Rates irrespective of the object for which those Rates have been imposed.
I may en passant explain that some of the items suggested for omission are not happily selected. The Road from the Gardens to the Gap is one passed in the Estimates of 1864, and deferred by discussions with the Military Authorities. It is now again brought forward not merely as a boon to all classes in the form of an easily reached and agreeable addition to their walks and drives, but also as opening up hereafter pleasant and suitable Villa sites, destined at some future period to repay part of the cost of the Road's construction.
The suggestion to strike off the $4,000 for Roads in Kowloon is not feasible because the Colony is actually bound by agreements with its tenants to expend that sum. As to the proposed outlay on the Sanitarium at Kowloon referred to in the Memorial and Protest, it has only been deferred till now by discussions between the Civil and Military departments. It may be regarded as eventually reproductive because calculated to open up and render attractive a valuable property hitherto neglected, through causes beyond the control of the local Executive. Already Kowloon brings you a Revenue of $20,000 per annum, and it was understood originally that money derived from thence was mainly to be expended in improvements there. I think, whilst discharging that obligation, there is reasonable hope when the fine site of Mount Elgin is occupied by a suitable building, that public attention will be once more attracted to the neighborhood with results beneficial to the Treasury. The utility of other and important items are not disputed, such as the intended Reservoir at Pokfoolum, and a contribution by the Colony towards the maintenance of a Gunboat to be placed at the disposal of this Government. The expediency however of raising money by a Stamp Duty for those purposes is disputed and I shall presently come to that point.
In the mean time I would observe that, although I feel it right to show that no items have been placed in the Estimates without due consideration, I nevertheless regard the discussion of these particular details as really but an adjournment and as it were a frittering away of the main question which lies behind all such minor discussions. That question is, whether there really be any reasonable ground to suppose, or whether it is desirable, if practicable, that for many years the Expenditure should be less than now on works of utility and ornament, the promotion of sanitary objects, and general convenience or the rendering productive property which now lies unproductive.
If our last road and our last drain and our final repairs to Public buildings, if in fact every thing, that marks progress in a Community, not yet smitten by decay, could be all completed by the end of 1867, most assuredly it would be unwise to introduce a Stamp or other tax of a permanent character to tide us over so short an interval as twelve months.
Yet those who signed the Memorial and the Protest know well that of all Public Expenditure, the one which tells most in conserving the ...
48