THE PROPOSED CORN LAWS.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 14, Issue 707, 9 August 1869, Page 3

THE PROPOSED CORN LAWS.

(Wellington Independent.) The duty «on flour and grain which Mr Yogel proposed in his financial statement is not likely to meet with much favor throughout the Colony. It is contemplated to levy a tax equal to that imposed in the colony of Victoria, which is on flour, Is per cwt; on ba> ley, 9d per cwt; on beans and pease, 9d per cwt, on maize, 9d per cwt; on oats, 9d per cwt; and on wheat, 9d per cwt. The Government suggest the imposition of this tax in a very half-hearted way. The House is only " recommended to consent to it," an I it is more than hinted that if tho proposal should be regarded with disfavor it will be withdrawn. It is not very easy to understand what the Government pro posal means. The duty is only to be imposed "whilst the price of grain does not exceed a maximum to be stated, which uviximuin will represent the price at which it can be produced in the colony without loss." Founding upon this Mr Vogel argues that the consumer would not suffer from the tax. We entirely fail to see this. Any tax on a commodity will, as a general rule raLe the value and price of the commodity by at least the amount of the tax. It in truth often Joes more than this, because there has to be added the cost of collecting the tax. Lf wo can get wheat and flour from Adelaide, or Valparaiso, or Chili, or California, cheaper than it can be produced in New Zealand, so much tho better for the consumer, because the price will thereby be kept down through the competition of the imported against the home grown article. Mr Vogel says that h does not wish to raise the question of protection or free trade, but that it exactly what he does do. The proposed tax is neither more nor less than a protective duty. Whatever slight advantage the grain grower iu this colony tnig.it from the imposition of such a tax would require to be paid for by the consumer. A tax on bread—the very staff of life —is of all others the most unfair of taxes, because it falls chiefly upon those least able to bear it. A working man who in these hard limes, does not owe week with another earn more than 30s, and who has many little mouths to feed, would find it no trilling hardship to pay an extra penny on his two pound loaf The benelit to the New Zealana agriculturist would be very trifling, be cause the proposed du ! y is not high enough to check importation materially. The proposal is a half-and-half sort ot measure which cannot possibly do good and is certain to do harm. It is much better to let things find their natural level than to interfere with them by over much legislation. We believe that, our farmers can grow grain to sell at such a price as will fairly compete with the imported article and that is only want of energy and enterprise which prevents them from doing so. There is no necessity foi a protective duty on imported cereals to stimulate agricultural production, faking into consideration tho price o' land, the fertility of the soil, and the readiness of a market in New Zealand, there is no reason why a supply of cereals should not be produced adequate to tho consumption of the Colony, at a paying price even when in competition with the imported article. It is a very serious thing to tax the necessaries of life. It causes the burden to fall upon the shoulders of the poor, while it allows the more affluent classes to escape with comparative impunity. A tax on grain means a dear loaf to the poor man, and what can be a greater hardship than that? To the very poor, it means that the little ones shall be stinted of bread, and that there will be greater difficulty than ever in muk mg both ends meet. On the other hand we see no substantial benefit whica this tax is likely to confer. A duty on imported grain is simply mischievous. Ic prevents healthy competition and a cheap market, while it is certain to make the consumer suffer.