The Evening Star. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1870.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 292, 16 December 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1870.

"We liavc avoided any allusion to the rash and hazardous statements of our evening contemporary in his ardent advocacy of free trade. But, makingall allowance for the excess of warmth that must exist, it is difficult to let pass statements hazarded on apparently second-hand information of an unreliable kind. A short time since, the public was treated to a histoiy of the origin and progress of the financial disasters of Queensland ; and in yesterday's issue we have excerpts from the history of industry iv Victoria. Keferring to paper-making, our contemporary says : —" Whereas the only paper-mill started in Victoria is that of Mr. Samuel Eamsden, just over Prince's Bridge, on the banks of the "Yarra, and that has proved a success from the first, without anything having ever been asked or extended to it, either in the shape of protection, or a bonus. So great, indeed, has been the success of this unassisted industry, that Eamsden's printing papers and wrapping papers have fcund their way into all colonies, to New Zealand among the rest, and arc preferred, in many cases, to those of Eaglish manufacture. "When our Auckland protectionists, then, next ask us to see what a protective policy has done in Victoria towards the promotion of native industry, let them, for decency's sake, not put glassblowing or paper-making in the category." "We stall not enter on the merits of the question at issue. But we deprecate these erroneous assertions. The paper factory alluded to, instead of " proving a success from the first," was a ruin at the first. The predecessor of Mr. Eamsden sunk and lost a large fortune, and what, to him, was worse, he involved the fortunes of all his friends in one common ruin. Like most experimenters? in a young country, he staked all fqffi^hat has proved eventually one j|ne most successful industries. the usual penalty, and his^^wiid gave way iv consequence. lflfe great success of Mr. Samuel Uamsden has been built up on tho ruins of what would have been a success in the hands of his enterprising predecessor, had a little timely aid been afforded by Government intervention. The fortune of that unhappy man did for the colony what the revenue of the colony should have done, and the result is quite the same —the successful establishment of the industry of paper-making. "With reference to our contemporary's illustrations from Queensland history, we observe that he has never withdrawn the faux pas which he made in his rash and erroneous assertions. He stated in a similar manner that the sugar industry of that colony has attained success without bonua protection, whereas the amount of Government favour shown to the sugar cane has exceeded that afforded to any other product, perhaps, in all the Southern colonies. Free selection of land around all the bays and navigable rivers of the colony, where all land was locked up by legislation against almost every other agricultural industry. Long leases, at nominal rents, with right of purchase, a protective tariff of the most stringent kind, remission of all duty on machinery for sugar and rum making — even the transport of such machinery by Government steamers were among the favors showered on this industry, which our evening contemporary declared to have originated and flourished without Government intervention. In like manner, we were assured that the granting of the bonus of £10 per bale on cotton was what beggared the Government and precipitated the financial crisis in Queens'and. Whereas a penny had never been taken from the revenue for the purpose, the bonus being paid in land orders, used in the taking up of land to be devoted to the further extension of cotton growing. We were also informed by our contemporary that the Government of that colony, having its account at the " Bank of Queensland," that institution became bankrupt : whereas the Government never had anything whatever to do with the bank, which was a proprietary

and very feeble private institution. Really our contemporary should not make these wrong assertions. The morning papers will not condescend to notice him, and we who stand on the same platform with him desire that we should each pursue the even tenor o£ his way, and so the public is misled. We respect our contemporary in his up-hill struggle against the overwhelming force of public opinion which is bearing down so strongly in favour of home industries. But it is not fair to try to throw dust in the people's eyes by misstatemeut of incidents in the sister colonies as bearing on the question at issue.