Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1871.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 18, Issue 1124, 19 September 1871, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1871.

An apt illustration of the absurdities in which the advocates of Protective duties are necessarily involved is to be found in the Financial Statement recently made by the Colonial Treasurer. Their argument, as usually offered, is something like the following : —Let us tax such manufactured articles as we are able to produce, and pern-it the importation of raw materials free of duty : by this means we shall enable our local industries to successfully compete with their foreign rivals by permitting them to get their raw materials cheap, and enabling them to charge a higher price (higher by the amount of the imposed duty) on their manufactured productions. It will be observed that the whole force of the argument depends on the distinction between raw materials and manufactured aitides, and, as u*ed by Protectionists, it is made to assume an air of plausibility. The fact is, however, that the distinction is one that cannot stand the te-t of examination. Let us take as an illustrative instance the manufacture of saddles, boots and shoes, and the other manufactures of which the raw material is leather. Many of the manufacturers interested in these productions, would doubtless highly approve of a tariff that would admit leather duty free, and tax articles in which leather enters as rawmaterial. But it will be at once obvious that leather is as much a manufactured article as are the articles made from it, and the tanner and currier have just as much right to cry out for Protection as the bootmaker or .saddler. The same is the case throughout the whole range of merchandise. There is nothing that can be produced without labor, and consequently which is not to that extent a manufactured article — raw materials, pure and simple, such as the Protectionist would admit duty free, do not exist. The illustration of the above fact to be found in the Financial Statement relates to the local industiy recently established in some parts of the Colony—the manufacture of alcohol. It happens singularly enough that the raw material of this manufacture is the very article that Protectionists wish to tax for the protection of the agricultural interest, and Mr Yogel has the choice of the horns of the dilemma on which he is placed—either to forego the protection of the agricultural interest, or tax: the raw material of the distiller. In proposing the new tax, however, the Financier wisely avoids the question of Protection so far as relates to the agricultural interest, stating that it is revenue he is looking forward to, apart from other questions ; but he cannot disguise the fact that the distillers will feel the effect of the tax in a higher price to be paid for grain—probably even to the extent of closing their establishments. Ti} this case revenue will gain something more than the tax will directly produce.

It is to be observed that the Protectionist looks only to the interest of the peculiar class he would benefit. He would tax the foreign producer in order that the home producer should be able to charge a higher rate for his wares. If the foreign producer be shut out of the market entirely, so much the better for his case. He does not seek the public benefit, neithet' does he aim at revenue, because only as revenue is not produced is the home manufacturer benefited. On the other hand, our Colonial Treasurer imposes the tax to raise revenue, and is accordingly careful not to make it so heavy as to be prohibitive. In each case the consumer has to pay, so that so far as he is concerned it comes to about the same thing.