PROTECTION, FROM A COLONIAL STANDPOINT.

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 17, 28 July 1892, Page 2

PROTECTION, FROM A COLONIAL STANDPOINT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sib,— l have read with much interest your correspondents' opinions on both Freetrade and Protection by Mr Chamberlain and " Colonist," also Mr Goodbehere, and hope you will find space for this article in reply. I cordially support the first of the former's views. Could anything expose the Freetrade fallacy in soma particulars more than what 1 am now about to submit to your readers. Let us take the boot trade of the colony. We are importing thousands of pounds worth annually from England, such goods being possibly manufactured by 75,000 bootmakers, say one-eighth of New Zealand's population. How can this colony compete with such goods, without protection, against such tradesmen who receiye such low wages and work such long hours. The idea is absurd in the extreme. The English tradesman contributes nothing towards our taxation, but drains the colony of £3,000,000 of interest on its loans. Even local factories sometimes can only admit of six months work to its employes. What about the local makers who have to contend against them even for a living. Do not facts tell how, under great drawbacks, our industries are fostered and some would not have existed without a moderate protective duty through the Customs. We are only a mere handful of people against such competition and such goods could be better manufactured here and the money spent in the community when all would feel the better thereby for having the money kept in the country for the purposes of industry. Besides, we haye had " the depression " to contend with, and an increased cost of living besides being siddied with English emigrants to this colony, possibly without capital, who cause our labouring men's ordinary rate of pay to be diminished, not strengthening our funds. Exception must be taken to " Colonist' " latter end of his letter. He refers to the frozen meat trade. He shows fairly good taste, it is true, but no support for his grounds of self defence. The outlet of this supply brings excellent returns. England requires our frozen mutton, and can not do without it, but we can do without English shoes when we are unable to supply the demand with our own manufacture of goods. " Colonists " overlooks our producing powers. They are unlimited, thanks to our lucky stars. Our skilled labour also has a retrogressive tendency. The inference is we must favour protection of our industries. Lately a man in Melbourne said that protection was thought to be a grand principle some years ago there. Of late he had changed his mind, and now attributed that city's downfall to that policy. Possibly the true solution is that the depression consequent upon the Land Boom reaction was the cause of such, and not the Protection policy complained of. New Zealand affords quite an opposite opinion as to its depression, though not altogether a Freetrade country it was never in a better position than now which effectually exposes the idea of a protective policy being a snare to its true progress. I am, etc., John Devebell. New Plymouth.