and essentially necessary to its occupation by the tenant."
Hon. P. RYRTE-That is the furnituro.
HIS EXCELLENCY-I need hardly say that I have not permitted this matter to come before the Connell without having given it any very careful consideration. I have given full weight to the arguments which have been urged by Me. Chater and supported by Mr. Bell-Irving, bat I frankly confess at once the reasons on the other side appear too strong to justify me in giving way. The hon. the Treasurer has already anti- cipated the greater part of what I should other- wise have felt inclined to say on the subject. The same arguments which are used by the hon. mombars apply with very much greater foren in many other places whore machinery is in existence. Nobody can say that an in- crease in population is more necessary to Hong- kong than it is to a great many other places in the world whore machi ory is taxed like other things. If there is any difference 1 should say it is less necessary. The more population we are able to provide for, no doubt the better, but the necessity for greater population is, if anything. less great here than in many other places. I really do not see why machinery which, at all events for the most part, is earning large profits should be exempt from the taxation to which all other kinds of property are subject. Recollect you! cutoff from yourselves, and very rightly, what is the principal source of revenue in most other colonies, amely, import duties. The effect of doing that and our thus having a free port is no doubt one of the principal reasons of our prosperity. But recollect that by doing this you create a greater necessity for the existence of other forms of taxation. If you whittle away the sources of taxation, as they have been whittled away in one way or another in this Colony, you will gradually have nothing to go upon at all, and I confess that while giving the fullest weight to what the hon. members have said I cannot see why the same arguments that used with regard to machinery should) not apply to many other things which nobody doubts are proper subjects for taxation. I may say with regard to this that as a metter of fact at the end of this year not a single pro- prietor of machinery will pay any more than at present. In the absence of force majeure or some unforseen necessity for increased expendi- ture, which there is certainly no reason to antici- pate at present, I have not the least doubt what- over that I shall be able to propose a considerable reduction of the rating in connection with the next estimates; and I have still less doubt that if the Secretary of State sanctions the principle of a loan for reproductive works, that redaction will be equal to three per cent, and bring the taxation down to what it was in the past, and what the hon. member (Hou. A. P. MacEwen) the other day mentioned as his idea of what it should be. (Hear, hear). That being the case, I believe that the increase of taxation to the owners of machinery, which if you come to calculate it will under any circumstances be a very trifling one, will in the majority of cases be absolutely nothing at all. I really do not feel justified in passing a law dealing with the rating of the Colony in making an exception which is really an exception in favour of the richer classes. It. really means, when you come to consider it, an exception which favours the richer people of the colony at the expense of the poorer. Taking into considoration that really there will be no substantial burden created by it, I feel bound to give my support to the view which is expressed in the clause as printed here.
are
Hon. P. RYRIE-If the tax is so very trifling, why impose it and irritate the people by it?
His EXCELLENCY-There is such a thing as principle, Mr. Ryrie.
Pon. P. RYBIE-1 don't see the principle of it at all.
The COLONIAL TREASURER-After what has fallen from your Excellency I don't know whe- ther the hon. member would desire to press bis motion to a division.
Hon. C. P. CHATER-I do. I beg to propose the amendment.
A division was then taken on the amendment, which resulted as follows:-
FOR.
Hon. C. P. Chater Hon. J. Bell-Irving Hon. A, P. MacEwen Hon. P. Ryzia
AGAINST.
Hon. Wong Shing
The Captain Superintendent of
Polico
The Surveyor General The Colonial Treasurer
The Attorney-General
The Colonial Secretary
The Acting Chief Justice
The amendment was therefore lost by a ma. jority of three and the definition was passed as it stood in the Bill.
The CAPTAIN SUPERINTENDENT of POLICE said with reference to "tonement building" that he could not find the expression in the Ordia-
auce at all.
The COLONIAL TREASURER-I don't think it is necessary it should occur in the Ordinance. It meets all the objects here.
The CAPTAIN SUPERINTENDENT of POLICE Then you define an expression that is not in the Ordinance.
His EXCELLENCY-I think that kind of ob jection had better come from the legal mombers, Mr. Deane.
The definition was then passed. "Victoria Peak" as the name of a district was altered to the “Hill district.”
On Section 29, providing that on the valuation of piers a total charge of 7 per cent. should be payable, Hon. A. P. MACEWEN said-I have no doubt, sir, you are well aware there is a strong objection to this clause, at any rate my hon. friend on the right (the Treasurer) is. The argu- ment is that a pier is simply an accessory to a godown, on which you already get thirteen per cent. Another thing is that the life of a pier is much shorter than that of a house; it is continually requiring repair, and the owners are put to considerable annual expenditure ou that
account.
A gentleman said to me to-day that he derives £1,000 a year from his godown, on which he pays the Government £130, which is a very considerable amount, and "now," he says, "you are going to tax me in addition for my pier; my godowns are useless to me without my pier. It appears to me that the object of this Ordinance is to rate buildings and not to go in- side them to rate machinery, as you did just now. nor outside, as hero, to rate piers. I beg to call your Excellency's attention to this. I think the section is one which requires consideration, and I move that it be postponed.
con-
Hos. J. BELL-IRVING-I bag to second that. Ilon. P. RYRIE—A. pier pays ground reut. The COLONIAL TREASURER-I think piers have been treated with extreme liberality in lowering the charge on them to a certain extent. The piers in Victoria are paying rates at thir- teen per cont, so they get a reduction of nearly one half by this clause. I entirely fail to sen why A, who has a godown and no pier, is to he taxed and not B. who has a pier and no godown. There are many piers not nected with godowns. There are piers in the hands of Chinese, who work that as a speculation. This is not an invention, it is part of the old Ordinance, which has been in force. here for twenty years. For som: unaccountable reason it was allowed to slumber, and piers were only rated two or three years ago. I think. At any rate, piers in Victoria have been rated for two or three years, paying at the rate of thirteen per cent, and as I said the other day, it was pointed out to me they ought not to be rated more highly than the piers at Kowloon, there- fore I propose a uniform charge of seven per cent, but I cannot recommend them to be on- tirely exempt.
His EXCELLENCY-I regret to say that I really fail to see in the arguments of hon. Mr. MacEwen sufficient to induce me to support his! amendment. It appears to me that he iguores what the hon. Treasuror brought forward, that there are cases of piers that are not in connection with godowns; and even when they are, it is quite clear that the addition of a pier must add to the value of the godown, and therefore the same reason which would apply to the exemption of a pier would apply to the exemption of a go- down. There is no more reason why the one should be exempt that the other. There seems as much reason why the piers should b taxal and not the godowns, as the god was and not the piers. That is the way the matter prosents itself to me, having already fully considered the matter, but being at the same time open, as I hope I always shall be, to arguments brought forward in Couusil that tend to overrids my views. Yet the argaments of the hon. membor are not such as to induce me to change my viow. Does the hon. member wish to press his motion under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that I think he has omitted to re- member that piers in connection with godowns are not the only ones ?
Hoa. A. P. MACEWEN-There may be easer where piers are not attached to godowns, still I think you will find the bulk of piors in the colony are attached to godowns. Your argn.
394
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.