PROTECTIVE DUTIES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1823, 24 April 1888, Page 3

PROTECTIVE DUTIES.

('•Austrian Star.")

The Pulaforda of the w ,r!d are oon* otantfy preaching that tha coat of commodities to the oonaumer mast invariably be increased to the fall extent of the duties imposed for purposes of Protection. We will favor this rapidly-beoomlng toothless kennel of disputants with a bit of bone to mamble If they oao'c craok it. At the present time the price of steel rails per ton, at the ship's side m Liverpool is £4 Charges, freights, etc., to New York cost £1 per ton. The proteotive doty of the Unitod States Is 17dols per ton , that is "to aay, about £8 8), Thus the total cost of English Bteel ralla at the ship's side m New York is £8 Bs. Bat the prioe of Eoglish steel rails at the ship's side m New York duty paid ie £5 12 i (28dole). Now, who has paid the duty of £B 8a per ton ? Olearly, the English maker has paid £2 16j of the amount, and the consumer has paid 12s. And why 1 Because America can produce Bteel rails for £5 12s while paying labor at American rates. Domcstb competition has rednoed prloes. Now, had there been no proteotive duty what would have been the state of the case ? English rails would have been sold at the ship's side at New York for £5 per ton, provided always the English maker* or shipowners did not get op a pool to levy monopoly prioes or freights upon the Americans m view of being compelled to buy as they would have no domestic rail rolling mills. There would thus have been a possible saving of 12s per ton ou all steel rails m the 5,000,000 of tonß naed m the United States railways. Bat against this three-fourths of the steel annually produced is for railways. The United States manufacture 27 per cent out of the wcrld'a output of steel.