Manawatu Herald TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1892. Import Duty on Coal.

Manawatu Herald, 26 July 1892, Page 2

Manawatu Herald TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1892. Import Duty on Coal.

Some earnest member of parliament desired that an import duty of two shillings a ton should be imposed on all coal, because 126,000 tons were imported from Newcastle last year ! We do not look for very broad views from private members, but from the Minister specially deputed to improve our Mining industry we do look for a little more knowledge on the subject than he showed. It appears, by what was said during the debate, that the hon. Mr Seddon was too busy attending banquets, and political meetings, about the country to have cared to have looked into this question from a Statesman's point of view, and therefore thought the information was of a " very startling nature " even to him, the Minister for Public Works ; and he. mentioned as news ! that he had just learnt (the day on which he spoke) that Newcastle ooal was being delivered at 6s a ton less than the West Coast coal could be sold at, and therefore, to excuse his want of attention, he thought the matter should be referred to a select committee ! The Minister ought to have been as well aware of the state of the coal trade as was Mr McLean, who certainly plainly showed, not only how absurd the imposition of a duty would be, so far as the reducing the price to the consumer, but that it would simply be placing the amount of the duty as an extra profit to the coal-owners, That a very large profit is made by these owners is clear, when it is stated, that the cost of getting the ooal and putting it on board the steamer at Greymouth is only six shillings a ton, the freight across to Wellington is only six shillings a ton, and the wharfage, one shilling a ton, yet consumers have to pay from 28s to 32s a ton for it ! Mr McLean pointed out that the only way to reduce the price of coal was for the government to take up some of these coal-measures and work them. These were facts which were as easily ob tain able by the Minister as by Mr McLean, yet he was surprised ! We expect he was even more surprised by some figures given by Mr Duthie. Last year the import of ooal was 110,000 tons which represented a payment to New South Wales of £83,000. The absurdity of thinking of being able to shut out these coals by an import fluty jvas shown by the fact that the duty could not be raised on the coal afloat, and the English steam-ships would get the coal down in bond and tranship it, as would also the coastal steamers, so that it would be the manufacturers of the Colony and the farming interests which would suffer. To try and retain a sum of £38,000 within the colony, by the imposition of an import duty, would mean most seriously risking the farmers exports to the amount of £885,000 which is the value New South Wales bought from us. If it would not pay the vessels trading to that colony to bring back coal, the cost of freights outwards would be so much increased that it would not pay the farmer to ship, and thus by the government blindly grasping at a shadow the farmers would lose the substance. It has been clearly shown by this debate at any rate as far as the coal trade is concerned, that the particular Minister whose duty it is to be posted up in these matters, appears more astonished at well-known facts than any other member of the House.