The Hastings Standard Published Daily. WEDNESDAY, OCT. 28, 1896. TARIFFS AND POLITICIANS.

Hastings Standard, Issue 157, 28 October 1896, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily.

WEDNESDAY, OCT. 28, 1896. TARIFFS AND POLITICIANS.

For the cause that lacks assistance. For the that need resistance, For the future in the distance. And the good that we can do.

Tin: politicians on the stump and the papers on the puff are agitating themselves about the tariffs. Who built up the ring-fence in New Zealand in 1888 seems a very antiquated subject to discuss just now ; but where mud-fling-ing is the objective, the venerable nature of the subject does not weigh with the combatants. In the war raging over this question the windbags find unbounded delight in probing the mullock contained in Hansard to discover the authors of the infamous Tariff of lssy and the names of those who voted for it. Unfortunately the Liberals do not come out with credit. The protective duties imposed in lytfS was the work of the late Sir Ilarry Atkinson, who simply filched the tariff from Sir Julius Yogel who had just been turned out of office. The Liberals went to the poll on the cry of Protection, and were beaten. When Sir Ilarry Atkinson brought in a tariff based on Protection, the Liberals had no option but to vote for it, in conformity with their election pledges. The party usually found supporting Sir Harry Atkinson voted against his tariff proposals, but with the help of the Liberals ho carried the day. If there is any pleasure in knowing who burdened the country with the policy of protection we regret to .say the Liberals must bear the odium. In 159.1 it was the Liberal party that with one hand lightened these burdens and with the other fastened a millstone about the necks of the people more burdensome than the tariff of

IHNH. Protection is the one fad tha Liberals seem to cherish, and of all fads it is the most hurtful to the democracy. But why do the leaders of to-day discuss the tariff of lttHS '? They do so with an evident desire to belittle the other side, and in doing so conclusively prove that the policy of protection was, is, and over will be detrimental to the wel # l- being of the community. If it were not so what is the use of referring to it? Tf protection is beneficial then we should expect to see the contending parties claiming the sponsorship of such a grand policy. P>ut that is exactly what they avoid doing and refer to the subject only for the purpose of discrediting their opponents. The Liberals will cover themselves with enduring glory when they burn this protection fetish. They do not sincerely believe in it. and cannot defend it upon any solid grounds. Experience, facts, and figures are all against protection, and we have not far to travel for an illustration. There is before us the prospect of a wheat famine, and singularly we are all looking to the only free-trade colony for supplies. New South A\ ales promises to be the granary for the colonies, simply because the merchants of Sydney are allowed the freedom of buying in the cheapest market. These merchants have made large importations of wheat and flour from America, and from this store of free imports the colonies are looking for supplies. What is the result ? New South Wales under the stimulus of free exchange of commodities is becoming the centre of commercial activity in Australasia. Yk hat has proved so beneficial to New South \\ ales cannot surely be detrimental to New Zealand ! And the policy adopted by the Liberals of the Mother Colony should not be sneered at by the Liberals of New Zealand. Kreetrade may not be the sovereign remedy for commercial depression, but that it is a powerful purgative for such complaints is clearly shown in the of New South Wales. That party will deserve well of the country that endeavors to pull down the Avails of Protection, even if its efforts only result in partial success. Instead of taking a firm stand for or against Protection the leaders of the day are trilling with the subject and those who are subject to the baneful effects of Protection. Political skittles is not a very interesting game, for the onlookers, and the question, ■' Who framed the Tariff of INHH " is about as serious a question as " Who struck Bucklev ? "