Correspondence.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 152, 24 December 1894, Page 2

Correspondence.

FREETRADiSf AND PROTECTION s , IN AMERICA.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir,— To answer " Patriot's" letter, published in yesterday's Star, in detail, would take up the whole of one of your daily issues, if not more. I will, therefore, not inflict you with a categorical reply to it. He has completely wandered from the point in issue, viz., his undertaking to prove that the fundamental doctrines of political economists have been completely overthrown. His only attempt to fulfil this undertaking is his own statement that the excess of ten millions during the past four years in New Zealand's exports over its imports proves the great advantage New Zealand has gained from Protection, upsetting, as he fondly imagines, one of the main Freetrade doctrines. But where is his proof ? In his letter published by you on the 13th instant, whilst admitting the excess of England's imports over exports, he makes the most extraordinary statement that this excess should be capitalised and added to the exports. What he can mean ty this as bearing on the question of Freetrade and Protection, I am quite at a loss to conjecture. It appears to me that he might just as well talk of capitalizing bis grandmother. The fact is that all of " Patriot's " letters clearly show that he knows little or nothing of Freetrade doctrines. I, therefore, for "the information of himself and your readers, think it as well to mention the principal ones, which are as follows :— 1. Balances dtte from one country to another are paid in goods and not in specie, except to an insignificant amount. 2. For every export (except itf payment of a debt) there must be an import of the same amount/- except 'when received in liquidation of a debt. 3. That limitation of imports (by means of Protection) limits exports to the same amount, curtails foreign trade and attracts labor and capital from productive to unproductive industries, and that although it may be beneficial to the few it is injurious to the vast majority of the people. 4. That an excess. of exports over imports proves indebtedness to othtr countries, whereas, on the contrary, an excess of imports over exports -proves the indebtedness of other countries. Let " Patriot," if he can, logically disprove any one of the above propositions, without going into a rambling rodomontade. I am, etc., Saml. Goodbehsre. Feilding, December 22nd, 1894.