PLIGHT OF BOOT INDUSTRY.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 496, 31 August 1912, Page 3

PLIGHT OF BOOT INDUSTRY.

The Editor. Sir, The report of the meeting of the boot manufacturers of Auckland, with the Minister for Customa, raises a very large question, one of national importance, namely, the absolute protection of local manufacturers against outside competition. It appears from the figures adduced that the boot makers in the Dominion with a protection of a customs duty on boots of over 40 per cent, cannot do a profitable trade and are asking that further protection through the customs be given, the manufacturers of ready-made clothing with protection through the customs of about 30 per cent, are also desiring further protection and iron workers, makers of agricultural machinery, etc,, are asking further protection, though already largely protected by a special Act. It was stated by the spokesman of the bootmakers' deputation that his good workmen were being paid about 10s for an eight hours' day work, but that was not by th 9 workmen considered a sufficient wage, and they were demanding an increase. The Minister is reported to have promised to meet with three representatives of the local manufacturer three repreaentativea of the importing agents, and three representatives of the employeea. So far, so good, but I would ask if it is not desirable, nay more than that, justice demands that another and much larger section of the community be represented at such a conference. The whole population of the dominion require boots and shoes, and as the Customs tariff now stands every one pays just about twice as much for their foot wear, as if there was no protective duty upon these necessary articles. Do the public realise that they now havo to Day £2 for every <£l worth of boots and shoes that they wear. If they consider this fact I imagine that they will hesitate before endorsing the demand of a few, so, of course, another few shillings be added to the present exhorbitant price of boots and shoes. It is generally admitted that the products of the land in New Zealand constitute the only source of our wealth and prosperity as a community, and that the primary producer, the man working on the land has ultimately to bear the burden of taxation. Through protective tariffs nearly all other classes of the community can pass on the burden to the next neighbour, for the merchant or importer simply and easily passes on the increased cost (through cusomts duty) to the retailer. The retailer to his customers, the professional man can raise his fees, the artisan and town worker, through his union, raises his wages, in the vain hope that he will then be better off but, alas, he finds that everything he needs to buy or use rises proportionally, and generally a little more than proportionally in price. So he is rather worse off than before his wages were raised, and he is dissatisfied. But at last it comes to the farmer. He cannot pass on the increased cost of clothing, boots, or implements and tools, or worst of all, artificially raised wages upon any one. There is no possible protection for him for the price of his products and the fruits of his labour are regulated and absolutely fixed by their price in the open market of the world. Is there, then, any justice or sound policy in hampering him in his calling—'Which produces the real income and wealth of the colony by building up and increa°ing protective tariffs which will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The farmer knows that if the price of those things, which he must purchase is increased through protection, and the price of labour is also artificially raised by the same mistaken policy—he must of necessity curtail his operations and decrease his export. What a fine prospect this is for the inhabitants of New Zealand as a whole, but let me point out that it would pay the community as a whole much better to give a larga retiring allowance or pension to the small number who are now kept employed on highly protective industries, so that they cease their weak and ineffectual competition with the up-to-date manufacturers of England and America, and go upon our unoccupied lands where they would then be able to do well for themselves while increasing the wealth and prosperity of the Dominion. In conclusion 1 would beg that the farmer- —as the senior and principal partner in the community—be allowed his full and rightful share in the proposed conference with the Minister of Customs as to the increased protection to manufacturers through the tariff.—l am, etc. N.Z. FARMER. August 15th, 1912.