PROTECTION.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1955, 31 May 1880, Page 3

PROTECTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sib, —It. is evident that “ R P. 8.” has misconstrued the statement made by Mr Allan—- “ That certain commodities which were formerly charged a duty of 10 per cent, are now really cheaper by 10 per cent, than when the duty was only 3 per cent.” This assertion is open to two constructions, and it is very probable that out of a hundred readers fifty would fall into the same error as “ R P. 8.” If Mr Allan hod been a little more explicit this would have been avoided, and that which I am assured it is his desire to convey would have been at once understood and accepted as an indisputable fact. I venture to give »< 8.P.8.” and those of your readers who may have construed this statement in a similar manner what in my opinion is ita correct rendering. By certain commodities Mr Allan evidently referred to the goods which his firm now manufacture so largely, and with which, as a matter of course, he would be most intimate, viz., boots and shoes. By the rearrangement of the duty upon these goods an advance was imposed equivalent to 7 per cent, or 10 per cent, instead of 3. At this increased rate of duty the import of certain classes of goods (or, as Mr Allan puts it, certain commodities) was prohibited, and the colonial manufacturer, impelled by the pressure thus placed upon him, finds he is enabled, by the exercise of his ingenuity and the utilisation of every obtainable means — material and labor, —to produce goods of a similar character to those imported, not only at the same price as when the duly was but 3 per cent., but actually at 10 per cent. lower than that, proving clearly the truth of Mr -Allan’s statement, and giving an affirmative

reply to “R.P.B.’s ” question, “Are not protective duties put on for the purpose of enabling the colonial producer to compete with the home producer?” Apologising to Mr Allan for thus presuming to defend him, and to you, sir, for occupying so much space. Yours, &j.. May 25th.