Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1869.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 14, Issue 732, 4 November 1869, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1869.

Mr. E. C. J. Stevens is member of the General Assembly for Selwyn, the principal agricultural district in the Province of Canterbury. He was One of those members constituting the Middle Island party, or what was popularly known as "the Cave," which, although instrumental in displacing the Stafford Ministry, refused to support that of Mr Fox. ' Like Mr Fox, he is a free trader in principle ; but, unlike that 'gentleman, he was unable to " swallowhis principles as he would a dose of medicine"; consequently; when the question of imposing a duty on the importation of grain and flour was before the House, he was found in the ranks of its opponents, and by his vote aided in preventing the imposition of that duty. Now, representing as we Lave said an agricultural constituency, it was to be expected that his conduct in this matter would fail to give satisfaction ; and, accordingly, a portion of that constituency, constituting "The Farmer's Club," after the close of the session, invited him to meet them and explain the reasons which influenced him in giving a vote, as they considered, adverse to their interests. Accordingly, on the 18th October last, Mr Stevens met his constituents, and the interest felt in the subject was sufficient to call to. gether a very large number, who. listened to their representative wi+h great attention, and at the close of his speech put such questions to him as they considered bore upon the subject. The task, however, which Mr Stevens undertook—viz., to satisfy an agricultural constituency (hat he did right in voting against the corn tax —was one of considerable difficulty; and accordingly we find that he took the rather strange ground that "the

tax would not have affected the value of New Zealand produce of the same kind." He said the matter was as simple to him as possible. He looked on it as a measure for raising £14,000 for revenue purposes. He said that it was not considered by the Government as a protective measure, and appealed to the speeches of several hon. members in support of that view. The Government supported the measure because they said the money was necessary to carry on the government of the count ry. He found, however, that it was not necessary, and he voted against the measure because he thought it was wrong to increase the taxation of the country by ever so little; and in proof of his assertion adduced the fact that reductions in the estimates were made to the amount which rendered the additional tax unnecessaiy. During his address one of the audience

asked him if he opposed the duty oni cornsacks, and on his replying that] he had done so, much satisfaction was expressed, and it was said that that Avas certainly so much in his favor; but ultimately it was resolved that "Mr Stevens did not vote in the interests of his constituents in opposing the resolution." The question of the non-taxing of cornsacks and the taxing of com places the principles of the corn-tax advocates in the strongest possible lio-ht. Those principles amount to this—Tax all that we produce, but nothing that we consume —and when applied to any other besides the corn producing interest, defeat themselves. Each interest has the same right as that one to demand protection for what it produces and free trade for all that it consumes, and as all other interests are necessaiily consumers of corn, all except that particular interest by the same rule have a risht to demand free trade in it. It shows how ready the protectionist to abandon his principles as soon as they clash witli his interests. The manufacture of cornsacks is one of the industries that could be carried on with success in the Colony, and, according to the protection theory, it should be protected and fostered by a duty on ad of foreign mannfacture; but the agriculturists of Selwyn reason thus —A tax on corn would benefit us, though the whole Colony would be injured by it; but a tax on cornsacks would injure us, therefore we oppose it, though its imposition might promote the introduction of this industry amongst us. An exact parallel to this was mentioned by Mr Stafford in the debate on the corn duty in the House. It was the case of a saddler, who recommended a protective tax on saddles of foreign manufacture; but when asked if he also wished for a tax on imported leather, replied, "O, by no means ; let the leather be free."

We Hunk Mr Steven* took the wrong ground. He could not make his constituents believe that a tax on imported corn would not raise the price of the home-grown article; but he miglit have shown the arrant selfishness of the whole protection theory, and shamed its advocates on that ground. He might also ha^ ? e pointed out that though the agriculturist may derive a temporary advantage from the increased price his prodtice might bring, he would ultimately suffer in common with the rest of the community from its inevitable result in the general impoverishment of the whole.