The Evening Star. MONDAY, MAY 25, 1874.

Evening Star, Issue 3511, 25 May 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star. MONDAY, MAY 25, 1874.

If it can be shown that the Auckland or the Dunedin distillers have been in any way unfairly treated through their being led, by the fault ©f the .Government, to suppose that the excisfe duties were to be permanently fixed at onehalf of the import duties, and were consequently induced to enter upon an enterprise which they would otherwise have had nothing to do with, there is no reason why they should not receive fair compensation. We do not think that they have any just claim of the kind, as we said a few days ago, but that is of course a mere matter of opinion. There may be many circumstances connected with .their undertake ing to establish a distillery, which are unknown to the public, and which may really make their case a special one—one which should receive a special treatment. If it be so, by all means let it be specially dealt with. It may not be out of place to make a few remarks, however, about the general question involved in Mr Cawkwell’s case. We feel bound to protest against the constant reiteration of the statement that the Government is “ morally bound ” to keep the excise at one-half the import duty to the end of time, because in order to give a new industry a fair start, it arranged that the relative proportion of the duties for the time being should : be as one to two. It is certainly quite incredible that anyone should really believe that arrangements of this sort are or ought to be unalterable. Are there, not nearly every year changes at Home in the Customs duties and in the modes of taxation, or, speaking generally, in matters connected with the revenue 1 It is quite possible that the taking off of a halfpenny a pound of duty from any article that is imported into England may literally ruin scores of people. Holders of a large stock of an article that pays duty know, when such a reduction of a duty is proposed, that their goods will rapidly fall in price ; they push them into the market, which thus becomes glutted. An unnecessary fall in price takes place; holders are often obliged to sell at any price ; and thus many people may be easily rendered penniless by the action of Parliament. But we never heard the argument adduced that an import duty should remain unaltered, lest some one might be ruined through having speculated incautiously in the article on which the duty was to be changed. That is one of the ordinary risks of trade,, and must be provided for amongst other risks. Yet it might be said quite as fairly in this case as in that of the distillers, that the Government was morally bound not to alter the duty, because the speculator had been induced to hold largely through knowing that it would pay him to do so, and believing that the Government would make no change in the amount of duty. Again, the Government of Victoria has followed out the policy of protection; the consequence is that certain trades have been unduly fostered at the expense of the whole population. It seems certain, for instance, that the saddlers’ trade in Victoria employs far more men than would find work at it, if free, or nearly free, importation from other countries were allowed there. Of com’se, it is also true that saddles are very much dearer than they would otherwise be. It is certain, too, that the Victorians are beginning to see the folly of the course they have been pursuing; they see, to follow out the example given above, that if saddlers are to get more money, or what money represents, for their saddles, so also the public will get fewer saddles for their money. As the saddlers are comparatively few, and the people who require saddles many, it is evident that the public must, in the long run, have the worst of the bargain. It hardly requires a Solomon to see this; but it j taken the Victorians very many years 5 to even begin to see it. It is, however, a mere matter of time, and seemingly not a very long time. The day, then, will come when “Protection” will be done away with in Victoria.

Now it may be fairly assumed that there are many people in Victoria who have become saddlers simply from the fact that that business is there sufficiently extensive to employ a large number of people. If the protective duty were removed, it is plain that a large number of these people would no longer find employment at this particular trade, and would have to go to something else, which would probably pay them far worse than their present occupation. But, if a Government is morally bound to hare Medo-Persian, unalterable rules with regard to Customs and other duties, it follows that the change from Protection to Free Trade, when it does come, will be unjust, and indeed immoral, as it will be a virtual robbery of persons who have relied on the permanence of fiscal arrangements. This conclusion would be sufficiently absurd. Indeed, as we said the other day, the doctrine that a State is virtually bound to make no change in the mode of raising the revenue or in the relative proportions of certain duties, is alike opposed to experience and to common sense, ' s ' ■