THE DUTY ON FLOUR.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2176, 4 September 1907, Page 2

THE DUTY ON FLOUR.

REMOVAL OBJECTED TO IN AUCKLAND. Presi Association. AUCKLAND, September 3. A special mooting of the Council of tho Auckland Chamber of Commerce was held this afternoon to consider tho proposed abolition of the duty on imported flour. Mr. N. A. Nathan, who presided, considered it would be a disastrous thing for the whole community if tho duty was removed. Tho South would he more affected than tho North, which did not grow wheat to any extent, but the whole colony would suffer.

Mr. Mennie said if the local market was thrown ojien to tho competition of Australia, the milling industry in New Zealand would have to shut up altogether. Mr. Evans said if there was any guarantee that the consumer would get his loaf a iienny cheaper there would be room for argument. Ultimately, after a gx'eat deal of discussion, a motion was carried expressing the opinion that it is extremely undesirable that the duty on flour bo removed, as it is essential to the fanning interests of N.Z. that tho duty should bo retained on both flour and wheat.

TWO PROTESTS FROM DUNEDIN

DUNEDIN, September 3. At a special meeting of the committee of the Chamber of Commerce to-day it waf decided to send the following telegram to the Premier, the Hon. J. A. Millar, and the members for Dunedin: —“The committee of the Chamber of Commerce strongly protest against removing the duties on flour and wheat, as proposed bv sorno members of Parliament. They can see no reason why the agricultural population and producers should be penalised while protection is being given to all other industries in New Zealand. The committee would further point out that the Commonwealth of Australia considers it to its interests to put prohibitive duties on our agricultural produce.” The Flour-Millers’ Union of Workers has sent a telegram to the Hon. J. A. Millar, protesting against the abolition of the flour duty, on the ground thaj such a course would deprive them of their means of livelihood, and ho of no benefit to the workers directly or indirectly.