WHEAT AND PROTECTION.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18894, 8 January 1927, Page 17

WHEAT AND PROTECTION.

TO THB EDITOR OT THS miSS. Sir,—Your leading article in this morning's issue of your valuable paper, dealing with the very important problem mentioned by Mr David Jones, M.P., in his letter to the Acting-Prime Minister, should give ample food for thought to every wealth-producing section of this Dominion. It is true beyond the possibility of doubt that the food supplies of any country constitute its most urgent necessities, although relatively the need for importation may differ in the degree of urgency. Mr Jones did good service in referring to the dumping difficulty, and the Hon. the Minister for Customs clearly and quite correctly explained the difficulties in administering the law. There are, as you justly point out, inherent difficulties in administering the Act, and it is quite clear that these difficulties may and do arise with regard to nearly every commodity required in the daily exercise of civilised life, of which, as you quite clearly point out, food production is of the first importance.

You also correctly refer to the unreasonable opposition which some politicians make against protecting the farmers against "dumping" or unfair competition in tlieir most strenuous and hazardous occupation as food producers. The standard of living in this country has been rightly determined by the politicians under Statute 'aw, which is administered by a Supreme Court, and against its decisions there is no* appeal. Is it British fair-play to these laws regarding n""r'"ction in either the primary or secondary industries, and then deny the necessary protection to enable any of those industries to be carried on without reasonable reward to those engaged in the enterprises? The wheat-growers, as you point out, are justified in their complaint. "They have the right to fight for such tariff protection as will make wheat-growing reallv profitable over a series of years." This is a sound national of which wheat-produc-tion provides a clear illustration. National development can onlv exist and continue permanently through the creative efforts of its people, and the greater the variety of productive effort. the more solid will the national development prove to be. Your last sentence in the article is perfectly sound. You have used wheatgrowing to illustrate what a sound national policy should be in every class of productive effort, primary and secondary.—Yours, etc.. JAS A. FROSTICK. Cliristchurch. January 7th. [lt may be as well to say that we advocated better tariff protection for the farmer mainly because he is the victim of the high protection of secondary industries. He would probably be content with low protection if other people would.—Ed. The Press.]

A day in China is divided into 12 parts of two hours each. There are 20,000 families in Italy with over ten children.