Correspondence

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 28, 23 August 1892, Page 2

Correspondence

[We are not responsible for the opinions of our correspondents.] DEFENCE OF PROTECTION, FROM A COLONIAL STANDPOINT. TO THE KDITOII OF THE STAU. Sir, — There is no fear, as complained of, of paying a higher price for such boots made here for competition prevents imposition, and where such exists the better class article would command the higher price compatible with the value of material used and rates of workmanship. This a matter of arrangement between sellers, and buyers of cheaper lines could still get fair value for their money. A good article will keep its value and give satisfaction for outlay of money. One might remark that its to the advantage of the head of the factory to keep all bands up to a high state of efficiency and excellence as regards work so as to effectually do away with the idea that we cannot cope with English workmen. But here Mr Goodbehere may retort ; " What about boots supplied to country stores and prices sold at by those engaged in, trade ? Competition rules the supply and price. A dealer would not give prices to a manufacturer without allowing a margin of profit while disposing of such boots in his own locality. The next query that different factories pay different rates to workmen, or possibly sell less than others, or a trifle over, do in the same line. If any inequality exists, as regards rivalry, it does not affect the principle that the money is the better for being spent amongst us. One reason why we require protection, say some, is the buying of large bankrupt stocks from other colonies and selling such against local dealers. A positive gain to one party, a negative advantage to another. Yet its the principle many trade upon paradoxical as it is that an article cannot be sold for less than it costs to produce, or else someone must suffer loss, consequently a ruinous sacrifice follows to some traders who have to sufler in common with others. Many drawbacks are to be combatted by the young tradesman who starts a business in making boots. He commences with little capital to work upon. He possibly works hard, paya cash for his materials and Hying, has to contend against English goods and factory work. Finally, with want of work and bad debts he has to succumb for want of support. Hundreds of tradesmen could tell a similar tale. The seeming absurdity of the writer " Colonist," if I judge rightly, appears who says if such tradesmen cannot compete against imported goods they should betake themselves to bush or farm work, or other forms of labour. Likely enough at such work they could not earn a living or pay for their rations, besides overcrowd other men more experienced and who are possibly sufficient in numbers to meet all wants in this matter compatable with the wages offered for such labour required, and the result would proye a failure to those incompetent for such work, and be of no benefit to those engaging them from a fair outlay of capital. So easy is it to speak without responsibility. If we give ear to the idle theories that some men spin, one should bear in mind that capital must be protected, and realize the interest due on its ivestment, or else no gain would accrue in fostering our industries permanently. Such being the state of affairs, well may we exclaim with another writer : " I blush for thee, my bleeding country." I am, &c, John Deverelli.