The Evening Star FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2160, 8 April 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 1870.

There is a letter published in the Daily Times this morning, with some, statistical tables connected with the wool trade, forwarded to the ment of the United States by Mr Fox, in accordance with a resolution of the House of Representatives. It is luo

long for insertion in onr columns, anil chiefly remarkable as showing tire folly of a protective system. If Mr Fox’s theory be true, as to a certain extent it is, the States must be great losers by not throwing their ports open to free import of wool. The only portion of Mr Fox’s suggestions that is open to doubt, is the implied assumption that wool would find a better market in America than in England. Governments are quite capable of throwing impediments in the way of exchange, and if fiscal obstructions exist, they can facilitate commerce by their removal ; hut beyond that they are powerless. It is very easy to say— Open your ports and you will have the advantage of onr superior wool, which, on account of its peculiar quality, will not enter into competition with that of your Home growth ; but the States must do more than that before they can derive advantage from the competition of importers —they must become a manufacturing nation, and that they will never be so long as they persist in a system of exclusion. The folly of the American system lies in the vain attempt to keep up prices by means of a hostile tariff. This leads to innumerable complications, and was one of the chief causes of the civil war. Wherever such a system is adopted, class interests, impossible to reconcile, spring up. The import duty on wool is intended to raise the price to the grower. If it produce that effect, it prevents manufactures, because the raw material costs' so much that the fabric cannot compete in the world’s market with the products ot countries where no such impost is levied. But the “ protection ” fallacy lies in the nonconsideration of the rights of consumers as well as producers. It goes upon the principle of compelling those who want the article produced, to buy specific goods, although, if left free, they could lay out their money in buying articles more to their taste, of better quality and cheaper, elsewhere. It thus really takes from one man’s income to give to another. Like every other tax, therefore, it limits consumption, prevents the accumulation of capital and directly and indirectly reduces the demand for labor. As the woolgrowers in America are protected, so must the manufacturers be also. As grower aud spinner are protected so must the dyer. Protection in fact runs through every branch of the product until at length by repeated infinitesimal additions the price is so much enhanced that the buyer with limited means,. is obliged to submit to the injustice of having an inferior article forced upon him, at a higher price than would purchase the best class of goods elsewhere. In tins x’espect New Zealand much resembles the United States. In no country in the world is there greater need of x'evision of the tariff than in this Colony, It bristles with follies. There is not an article that could be produced here but has some hixxdraxxce throwxx in the way. Raw material, tools for working with, chemicals for manufactures, all share the fate of manufactured goods and luxuries, axxd yet there is a coxxtinxxal outcry for the encouragemexxt of manufactures, It is true there are special exeixxptions under certain specified circxxmstances, bxxt they oxxly tend to complicate and exxxbarrass opevatioxxs that should be simplified to the utmost. The apologists for these fiscal absurdities point to the expence of the war, and tell us, to meet it, Customs revenue to a certain amount is needed. So long as the Colony is satisfied Avitlx this excuse, so long Avill statesmexx provide money by means that promise them the best revexxuc at the least trouble. And this system will continue so long as society imagines they can x’eguiate work and profit by xxxeans of fiscal duties. The strangest phenomenon is, that while the suicidal policy of the United States isso plainly shoAvn in Mr Fox’s lettex’, it has xxot beexx perceived that the arguments used in condemning it equally apply to ourselves; and that, notwithstanding they are so palpably true that he avlio xutns may I’cad, it Avas attempted to introduce a px’ofesscdly protective tariff last year. So far as negotiations with the States to take our avool are concerned, avc may save ourselves the trouble; as xt is xmpossxble to make arrangements independexxtly of Great Britain. While we x’emaiix a pox'txon of the Empire, no separate negotiations could be entertained on the one .side, or permitted oxx the other.