Correspondence

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 22, 9 August 1892, Page 2

Correspondence

[We are not responsible for the opinions of our correspondents.^ DEFENCE OF PROTECTION, FROM A COLONIAL STANDPOINT. TO THE KDITOH OF THE STAH. Sir,— The next thing in regard to the aboye is the amouut of such boots in j value. Let us linu-jjine it to be £40,000 ; worth every year. We have this amouut \ of capital abstracted from all parties, j more or less, in the colony, and allowing 25 per cent for local profit to be circulated with us, a considerable amouut of -the yalue of such boots goes out of New Zealand. If such trade was restnetod to this colony, as being our own manufactured goods, such money would bo kept for labour amongst us and the vendors profits as well. Clearly, then, in doing away with English goods of this nature another matter presents itself to one's notice and claims first attention. It would be useless to create another evil while abolishing the former in regard to such money saved ; for such money spent on other articles sent out from Home which would be disposed off, say drapery and woollen goods, would affect the money saved for such a purpose twofold, for the reason, probably, that our factories could not compete against such trade at the rate the article is produced. Thus by trying to do away with one evil we should bolster up auother tnakiug the first saying of no avail, as common sense must admit and as some short sighted legislators might do. The only benefit would be an extra purchasing power. It by no moans follows, either, that such goods are required in excess of local demands. It behoves us to participate in this money kept in the colony which goes to make up the interest due on millions of debt, thus we have so much to the good. One must bear in mind that England's purchasing power is greater than ours having more capital at hand to build up their industries. No donbt by a policy of protection the unemployed difficulty could be more effectually grappled with, and to a certain extent the credit system, thus abolishing two great drawbacks towards the colony's progress. The next thing m regard to Protection and Freetrade is to gee a fair balance of trade and fair representation, as we stand or fall together concerning our goods locally manufactured in comparison to European countries, and the price over and above it costs us to make such, leaving a profit to the seller. Admitting we are not able to compete with imported goods, owing to our having to pay a higher price for labour, material, and hides to make such boots, this goes to prove, first, the disadvantage of an increased cost, and a serious drawback to the colonial bootmakers, as against the English producer, as regards competition. But, however, it goes further to prove the desirability of keeping the money in the colony. The argument, then, that we ought to compete against the world must appear absurd in the extreme. The positiou of traders, makers, sellers, and buyers is now more clearly defined, which goes to prove that if we were to allow the Freetrade mode of making boots here, we should giye those men flushed with unlimited cash, an undue advantage over such low-priced labor. Perhaps such are reaping profits above their expectations on their speculation. The same will apply to other men in other lines. The former position goes to prove that the result would keep such tradesmen poor, and not detract from the former's luxuries, and at the seller's expense ; and even increased sales would but little benefit such tradesmen, as extra trade, as regards finding labour for the prices, would not he increased in the cost of making such goods, nor allow any extra margin of profit to the maker, nor to the seller, possibly through competitive prices. An error appeared in the last paragraph of my previous letter, which should read thus : " We can do without English shoes and when unable to supply demands of boots, then let England supply the balance, not crippling our industry, and thus a benefit accrue to each." A reply to Mr Goodbehere's letter will appear shortly, with your permission. I am, &c, John Deverell.