PROTECTION VERSUS FREETRADE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1665, 17 September 1887, Page 1 (Supplement)

PROTECTION VERSUS FREETRADE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE Hilli,

Sir.-— ln your leader of Tuesday last you aay " The issue before the oountrj is whether we are to have Freetrade or Protection." Thia appears to my mind a moßt extraordinary thing to cay, considering that of the whole amount of increased taxation proposed by toe present Government only about one-fifth will m any way act as protection and considering also that tho Colonial Treasurer m delivering his Financial Statement, mentioned distinctly, that the proposed tariff was principally a Revenue Tariff, and considering further, that the principal leaders of the Opposition are m favor of protection. I need only mention the names of Sir George Grey, Major Atkinson, and Sir John Hall. Every one knows these gentlemen are m favor of protection, yet no one will assert any of them will support the present Government. How then can you maintain that the question is Protection versus Freetrade.

Another slatoment m your article, to whioh I wish, with all respect, to take exception is that "the nations who poured their goods into Great Britain, did so to tbe detriment and impoverishment of her working population." Amongst all the candidates m New Zealand who favor Protection, not one will be found who will maintain that Proteotion could m any way benefit the working population of Great Britain. Proteotion, whatever it may do for New Zealand could only injure Great Britain ; her main imports are food and raw material, and how m the name of all that is reasonable, can duties on these articles advantage her. The direct effect of such duties would render her less abbs to compete m the markets still open, and exolude her entirely from those where she is partly excluded, and thu result would be starvation for large numbers of her working population. The third statement to whioh I am compelled to object is, that " Not one parson who heard Sir Julius Yogel at the Oddfellows Hall but was convinced that he was a friend of the farmer." lam aquainted with a conaiderable number of persons who think exactly the reverie, and not only that, but they are satisfied that if the policy of Sir Julius Yogel is carried out it will be to the " detriment and impoverishment " of every class m New Zealand.

The fourth statement with whioh I cannot agree is that this Government have done anything towards " establishing loaal industries," aud that " The Freetraders are desirous of reducing any of the duties already impose']." This Government have sot so far as I have heard put any duties on, they tried it once, but failed agregiously, and I think they will probably fail again, and no Freetrader has yet proposed to reduce any of the existing duties.

I am etc., FnEKTRADBR,