Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, JAN. 28, 1897. Free Trade.

Manawatu Herald, 28 January 1897, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, JAN. 28, 1897. Free Trade.

Oke of the'planka of the platform of the Labour Party at tbe election which brought Mr Seddon into power was Free Trade, or, if not that alto gether, at least a free breakfast table. After many years of their party being in power have they approached one jot nearer their ideal ? We cannot for one moment understand why the labourer does. not clamour for Free Trade, and why be should, like the child in Pears soap picture not be happy till he gets it. We know interested parses have tried to bamboozle him into the belief that protected industries create labour, hut whilst doing this for the few they create a heavy burden, in increased piicep, for the many. We have in this district a very apt illustration of protection, and its working can thus be understood \>y the many. The Governmpnr, to please tbe c'amouring of faddists and other interested perpons' have placed a duty of one penny a pound on imported apples, with the idea that by this means settlers wiil be encouraged to plant orchards. Now, supposing the duty was to have this effect, who at present gain ? The nursery gardeners who have fruit trees for sale, and the orchardists who have fruit to sell. Think for one moment the proportion these people bear to the whole population of New Zealand, and then it will appear how unjustly protection on fruit, just ibe same as protection on anything else, works. For the advantage of the few many c uff j r. It becomes el-mr that the Government were convinced, prior to agreeing to increase this duty, tbat without it the present orchardists did not find their business a 'paying onp, yet, oddly indeed it Bounds, they desired to encourage other* to go into this business ! As we have said, supposingothors do po into fruit growing, there will be a still funher competition amongst ihe colonial fruitgrower.*, nnd where then is the profit to come ? Will the Government be pleaded to still further increase the duty, or grant a bonus, or be piepired to let the settlers lose the money ihey have invested in planting by r heir advice ? One of tbe three things tnu't happpn if the Government had the slightest excuse for creating this duty. Though interested in fruit growing, we have all along declared it a mistake to encourage it by protection, and the result in a few years time will justify our objection* Naturally while the duty exists the local fruit growers will benefit by it, that is only human nature, but it is also possible for the public, who are taxed a penny and more on evtM-y pound of tipples they buy, to obj *cfc, and ihat would nut only be human nature but wisdom. There is nothing wor h starting that will not pay on its own account, and no industry is worth its salt tlvU vf quires ao bol-teriug up. Fite Trade versus Protection is a very difficult qu >sti'>n for non-business people to gra3p, and we are glad to have this instance of fruit glowing to place before them. Our readers may not have caught quite our saying of the duty being a penny and more, seeing the actual duty is one penny, so we will endeavour to explain it. Supposing a case of apples was imparted into Wellington at one penny -ft pound, and the Beller required fifiy per oent. profit, not an exceedingly* large one taking the risk of fruit, the selling price would be three half pence a pound, but the penny per pound apples needing the seller to pay one penny per pound duty, the cost to him is twopence and adding bis usual profit of fifty per cent , he cannot retail the apples for less than three-pence a pound. In like manner all duty paid on goods is treated by the trader as part cost and to the total amount is bis profit added, so the purchaser of apples, drapery, ironmongery, &c, pays not only rhe price and duty but the profit also on both price and duty, which increases the cost in a somewhat -imilar proportion as in the matter of the penny per pound apples which could without duty be sold by the retailer at three half pence, cannot with the duty of one penny be sold at less than three pence. It is of no use tbe purchaser paying that the local apples will drive the importpd one* our, for the orchardists knowing the handicap placed on the imported apples know very well that added to the price they could dispose of their fruit they can afford to add the penny per pound. So this amount goes into the pocket of the few producers ar. the? cost of ail consumers— as in this so in all cases of protection.