Protection (?)

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 11, 19 May 1911, Page 3

Protection (?)

By "BLOCHAIRN." In a recent issue of tlio "jNT.Z. Times" a Free Trader grew eloquent over the failure -of the Tories to make headway with their Tariff Reform proposal. With Hibernian eloqiience he declared that the workers of Britain were determined that their "cupboards would not be raided" by the supporters of that exploded nostrum, Protection. From a report on the "Army's Health," in the London "Daily News," it appears that of 50,298 recruits medically examined, 15,041 were rejected as physically unfit for the army, a ratio of 299.04 per 1000. Of those enlisted "a large proportion were growing lads," and, continues the report: "A large number were out of wor.it when enlisted. Probably the proportion of the latter was well over 90 per cent. ; as a consequence many were in poor CONDITION FROM WANT OS , FOOD." Doesn't look as if Free Trade Capitalism had left much in their cupboards to be "raided , ' by Protectionist Capitalism, does it V Then we have N.Z. Labour leaders going on deputations with employers urging the Government to protect first the boot and shoe industry and next the engineering indtistry by increased J Protection duties. Do these men ever i ask themselres "Whom does Protection protect?" Perhaps the following extract from the last annual report of Dalgety and Company, may help them to find an answer: "At the close of the trading year the profits shown amounted to £211,808. These profits are the largest tet MADE, being over £55,000 better than those of the previous year, and above the average for past five YEAEs. There waa an additional expenditure of £10,000, and as a result £55,000 more profit was available. That additional £10,000 expenditure is credited with returning 550 per cent, in profits. The total surplus after allowing over £50,000 to be carried to reserve, etc., shows a profit on the paid up capital of the Company of over 20 per cent. Whom does Protection protect?