New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4350, 27 February 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1875.

At the last general election, “ Protection “to Native Industry ’’ was apopular cry, and a majority of the House of Representatives was undoubtedly returned on the “ Protection ticket.” Fortunately for New Zealand, the application of this pernicious principle, in the revised Tariff, passed shortly afterwards, was but slight. But slight as it was it has been injurious, by reason of unnecessarily increasing the cost of living, failing to “ encourage “ farmers to cultivate,” and interfering with the development of trade. Where, let'us ask,; is the proof of an increased cultivation of maize in Auckland, consequent on the import duty oh that commodity 1 while there is conclusive proof that it has acted most oppressively, in enhancing the cost of horse feed, chiefly in the Northern province and Westland, which depend upon maize imports -to. a very great extent. Then, coming to wheat, barley, and oats, has the import duty upon these cereals, of 9d. per cental, stimulated production 1 We have the evidence of years before us to say 1-hat it has not. It has, however, enhanced the cost of living to non-producers, because millers and bakers take care that consumers shall pay the amount of duty, and something more, in the ordinary course of trade. The producers, however—the “ protected far- “ mers,”in no single instance benefit by the imposition of protective duties. As a practical comment upon the operation of “ the new duties,” as they were euphemistically called, we refer our readers to the true relation of agricultural enterprise in Otago last season, which appeared in Thursday’s issue condensed from the Dally limes. It is only necessary to add, in addition to the facts recorded in that article, that it is stated, (and we believe with truth,) that farmers will not grow barley to any extent unless the malsters guarantee them a fixed price before sowing. This is not likely to be done to any great extent, because it would shut out the malsters from the open market of the world, and tie them down to pay the local producer a fixed price, without reference to the general market value at which barley might be imported. But it should be borne in mind, nevertheless, that imported malt is liable to a duty-of Is. Gd. per bushel, while imported: barley pays 9d. per lOOlbs. Our contemporary, the Times, thinks that Otago could supply the Melbourne market with oats next season, on advantageous terms, were it not for the import duty of Gd. per bushel imposed by the Victorian Legislature. But why complain of this, when Now Zealand acts in precisely the same way 1 We impose an import duty of 9d. per 100 lbs. on oats, as a “protection to the New “ Zealand” farmer ; but as the New Zealand farmer grows a surplus of oats, and is effectually protected against imports by this surplus, he looks abroad for a market. The only available one is Victoria. That colony consumes oats- largely; but the Victorian farmer, who does not, and cannot grow a surplus of oats, must have his annual deficit protected, and so the New Zealand; surplus is Subjected to a tax of Gd. per bushel, which the New Zealand farmer pays sure enough, the merchant taking this impost into account when buying his oats. Now who is the gainer by all this ? Clearly the merchant. And the joint losers are the New Zealand farmer and Victorian consumer. The Victorian - farmer does not profit in the least, as he is unable to control the market,. and must take the price offered to: him by those, who can. So it is seen that differential duties act injuriously to the : interests they are ignorantly supposed to, servo. The like argument-applies to wheat,, New Zealand ‘ ‘ protects” its wheat surplus by an import duty, and Victoria protects its deficit in the same way. The result’ is identical: increased profits to merchants, increased price to consumers; and the loss of the amount of duty in i both colonies, by the i producers.;! Look: at the spectacle presented by; Wakatip in Thursday’s summary of agricultural pursuits in Otago. Hero is a large producing district, so ; remote from Dunedin that its surplus flour, “ protected” by an import duty of 20s. per ton, .cannot; find a buyer. It would cost £lO per tori to send it to Dunedin, which is an available market, and £8 10s. per ton to send it to Invercargill. What a mockery, under such circumstances, to tell, the farmers and millers of the district that they are ,“ projected against foreign competition!” Much better improve the means -of: internal communication, and enable them to compete with” foreign producers ’’ on equal terms in the Home market. Of; what avail is an import duty of £1 per ton, when the home producer is weighted with a haulage charge of £lO per ton before’he can compete with the importer? Then, again, wo have butter and cheese, and ham and bacon, “protected” by a heavy duty. But this duty does not cause the production of a single pound of butter, or cheese, or ham, or bacon that would not be produced without it. The local demand is sufficient inducement to producers ; and freight, commission, insurance, and risk of loss, are sufficient “protection.” But the demand is not nearly met, throughout the colony, by the Home supply; wherefore, the price is unnecessarily enhanced to consumers, even supposing that protective duties are ever necessary or desirable, which we absolutely deny. Coming to timber: let us ask what possible advantage the country has derived from the import duty on timber. It was imposed, in the first instance, many years ago, at the instigation of a powerful firm largely engaged in sawmills ; it has been continued, wo suspect, as a set-off for the North against the grain duty imposed in the interest of the Southern farmers. But it has altogether failed in its object. The New Zealand mills do not supply the local demand for timber ; hence the cost of building material is considerably enhanced, and the community at large suffer. Even the Government, with all its power and resources, look abroad for timbera caustic comment upon the Protective policy of which the Colony heard so much a short time ago.

Look at these duties in-whatever light we may, we must condemn them as a complete failure, .having respect to the, ostensible object on which they were,imposed. But we must likewise condemn thein as being oppressive and unfair in their operation, enhancing the cost or living, and seriously interfering with the building, and other trades. If any illustration from abroad were needed to enforce these remarks, we might point to the- frightful example furnished by the United States, as summarised in extracts from the Argus and other, newspapers, in yesterday’s issue. 'But we think no illustrations are needed to induce the public of New Zealand to demand the repeal ot the protective duties to which we have referred.