PROTECTION V. FREETRADE.

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 29, 25 August 1892, Page 2

PROTECTION V. FREETRADE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAK. Sir,—When individuals approach a great subject for discussion it is a matter for regret if they 'give way to empty declamation, or personal invective, in lieu of logical argument pertinent to the matter. I am led to these thoughts by the perusal of correspondence, lately appearing in your journal on the question of Protection v. Freetrade. In yonrisßue of the 18th instant there appears a letter by Mr John Deverell supposed to be written in advocacy of Protection, but which in reality is little else but a com- • pound of bluster, emptiness, and peruile remarks addressed to Mr Goodbehere, It is a pity Mr Deverell should have been tempted to emerge from New Plymouth on an intellectual combat, unless bettor armed. It is a singular thing in the colonies at the present day, that we find a revival of exploded Tory tenets foisted.. on the public attention as great Liberal principles, and one of these fallacies Is that of Protection. Supposing it Were possible for England to put on retaliatory duties, it would result in paralysing the trade of the world! It is only because English ports are free that Protection is possible in other parti of the world. Look at the results of a highly protected tariff in Victoria. Some time back exponents of this system were in the habit of quoting the beneficial effects produced in that colony and it has come to this at last—they have not only suffered in their exports but, what is of more consequence, the community as a whole, apart from the disastrous effects from " the boom," are thoroughly demoralised. The cry is for higher duties.. Farmers and others who have had to pay increased rates to give a profit to pro--tected industries, now insist upon ProtecV' tion with results anything but satisfactory for New Zealand. In the meanwhile the great bulk of the population, without participating in an increase of income have to pay extra prices for the daily supplies of the necessaries of life. What was the state of things in England before the time, of Gobden ? Why, sir, the masses of the people had an insufficiency of every comfort in life, while at the present time, under the benign influence of Freetrade the thrifty poor have as many comforts as the moderately affluent possessed in the time of the Corn Laws. No doubt in the colonies the matter presents itself In a different light. It is averred by some that only by Protection can local industries be fostered. Under some conditions this argument will hold good, but it must be fairly stated. There are people, whether fit or unfit, who are prepared to undertake responsibilities, especially if they have little or nothing to lose. We Bee that constantly from a digest of bankruptcy cases, the bulk of failures being due to insufficient capital, to a want of mastership, and a misconception of the economic condition of things. Now, while there are a few generous patriotic settlers who may believe in the advantages of high fiscal duties, the loud-voiced clamourers are made up of those who wish to get something at the expense of the community, and Protection is a good err. It goes down with the unthinking. Some few years back, when in Melbourne* I was introduced to a successful manufacturer of sweetmeats. On my enquiry as to how he would be affected by a lowering tariff, he replied, " I don't care what the Legislature does now, it has lasted long enough to make my pile." In America from all we can learn, the result may be summarised as disastrous to wage earners and full of benefit to rings, syndicates, millionaires, and greedy politicians. For the growth of industrial and manufacturing operations it appears to me there must be local favorable conditions, personal qualification, and the requisite capital. It certainly can not be right for the State to supplement the deficiencies of promoters, by taxing the community. Revenue, of course, must be raised for the conduct of affairs, but that is beside the present question. We have in this colony great advantages for the promotion of manufactures in the possession of coal and iron, and in the generous returns of raw material from natural sources. These require to be utilized by capable men in a suitable manner, to produce permanent beneficial results, but to attempt to produce in any country by manufacture other than those things having a local home, is a mistake, and that is just where the providential law of Freetrade comes in, the intent of which is, that all the dwellers upon earth should benefit by free exchange, that the produce of every clime should be within the reach ot all, and the balance of compensation adjusted by distributing what may be spared among nations of the excess of each for the good of all. Like the drink question, Protection from a statecraft point of view is of great importance. Standing armies, regal expenses, and wasteful legislation have to be provided for, and what is so easy as raising money in this manner ? The average tax payer is unaware ot the amount he pays. This from a Government aspect. From a private aspect the question is one of personal advantage at the cost of ones fellow- citizens. My pronounced views on the greatness* and blessings of Freetrade to the human race, is my apology for writing. Freetrade, sir, is only another name for Plenty for All, and it is well for thoughtful men when this great principle is assailed as it often is without rhyme or reason, to some* times put in a word. I am, etc., H. C. Wilson.