The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1885. "Neither a Protectionist nor a Free Trader.”

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1496, 24 March 1885, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1885. "Neither a Protectionist nor a Free Trader.”

Whatever political opinions he may hold it is hardly possible for any reader to peruse Sir Julius Vogel’s speech to the electors of Christchurch North, delivered last week, without a feeling of thankful satisfaction at its tone and spirit, and at the total absence of every low personal accusation, of any party injustice, or of the deplorable class prejudices which have too often disfigured the speeches of our public men. In these respects the speejji of the Colonial Treasurer is a model one, and offers an example which we hope will not be lost sight of by some of our other politicians. But perhaps Sir Julius Vogel is entitled to less credit for the moderation and temper of all his speeches when we look closely into his utterances and see how pliant his views are upon every subject, how they veer round to meet every occasion and every transpiring circumstance; how prone he is to take a middle view of every question ; whilst his fine rolling sentences will often bear no definite construction on either side of the subject upon which he is speaking. His first very faint approval of the West Coast railway addressed to a North Island constituency has hardened and enlarged in every subsequent speech, until it has now almost reached the views of a Christchurch audience. On the other hand, his strong, clear and decided views on Education expressed at Ashburton, grow weaker at each public utterance, and are now so far changed as to suggest, even to himself, another appeal to the electors upon that important question, whilst on the subjects of Free Trade and Protection his ambiguity surpasses even that of Sir George Grey, a politician who succeeded in making both parties claim him as their champion. The “Biglow candidate ” himself could not utter a more confused statement upon this subject than Sir Julius Vogel’s last. Following as it does so closely after his clear, sensible and logical remarks on Federation, the change of sty'e is striking, and one cannot fail to see that on this subject the Colonial Treasurer has drawn on more feeble minds than his own both for his arguments and his facts. Like most other Protectionists, Sir Julius Vogel begins by disclaiming the name. He says —“ As regards the questions of Protection and Free Trade, I am in favor neither of one nor the other.” It would have been quite as clear if he

had said, “ I am a Protectionist and I “ am not a Protectionist.” He then departs from the general tenor of his speech, and obtains “ laughter and applause ” Ly misrepresenting the “importers,” as asking to be altogether exempted from customs duties, A misrepresention, by the way, that Mr Chrystall takes care to make embarassingly plain to the speaker on the following day at a deputation. When a population of half a million has to pay interest on more than thirty millions of borrowed money, there can be no two opinions as to the necessity -« of customs duties. The distinct and wide difference between Free Traders and Protectionists in reference to cus- _ toms duties is this—should those duties be imposed so as to obtain as much revenue as must be had with the least possible cost to the consumer, or should the cost of articles of general consumption be greatly increased to the consumers, without producing any revenue to the State, in order that the high price so forced upon the consumer for the imported article should bolster up factories conducted under circumstances so unnatural, unwise, or uifavorable, as to be unable to command their home market on their own merits? - In other words, should the price of a _ hard pressed farmer’s or laborer’s tools, comforts and raiment be enormously raised to him in order that a few mechanics may be kept in town without being obliged to share the farmers’ hardships, to produce goods at a price , not low enough to command a natural , market protected only by the cost of i transit ? Again, shall we all stand or i fall together; shall we all share alike ' in any reduction of earnings, which 1 altered circumstances may render un- j avoidable ; or shall we try to bolster - t up a few individuals at the expense of j the great bulk of the community ? a Every effort has been made by an in- v terested minority in most countries to 8 hide this sipiple issue, and to induce " the least informed portion of each community to believe that what favors the few is beneficial to the whole; but it j p is really marvellous that a speaker ofloi Sir Julius Vogel’s intelligence and e ' experience should risk his own reputation so far as to attempt to make any R audience believe that any duty b£ that the State may impose would ra be paid by anyone but the tin G< fortunate consumer. The importer, if he knows his business, will send for his goods to England, America, Germany, Fiance or any country where he dir can procure them cheapest, the manufacturer neither knowing nor caring I* 15 whether a duty has to b<. paid on them or not; that concerns the consumer pr i, alone, and every farthing of duty must J cte

be paid by him and by no one else. There can be no doubt or misunder standing on that matter ; but what we want to bear carefully in mind is that if a duty be put on an article that will prevent it from being imported, the duty will still be paid by the consumer, although it will not contribute anything to the public revenue, but go either to enrich the protected producer or manufacturer, or, what would be still worse for the community, induce him to employ his own labor and that of others in some unprofitable direction. In this way the community may be impoverished tro any extent by import duties, without contributing a penny to the public revenue. In the extreme sense of the words there can be no Free Trade when customs duties are levied at all; but that is not the political sense of the words, either in England or this colony. If customs duties are so placed as to be paid by the consumer to the Government, on articles actually imported, he is only submitting to a necessary evil, and an evil that will be limited by the exigencies of the Government. But, if in addition to that burden, he has to pay an artificial price for articles taxed but not imported, there is no limit to the evil, the consumer may be victimised to any extent, and the Government be none the richer for the extortion. This line between the two courses is distinct enough, but none are so blind as those who will not see.- The electors of New Zealand make a great mistake when they encourage their public men to trim on this and other important public questions, and cheer those most lustily who throw the least light on subjects deeply affecting the welfare of the community.