THE VICTORIAN FARMERS AND THE “LIBERALS.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5408, 27 July 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE VICTORIAN FARMERS AND THE “LIBERALS.”

(From tho Austraslian, July 13th.) . There has been for some time a lull in the protection controversy, There was little use in discussing disputed points of policy when the maintenance of tho law itself was at stake.

But more recently., incidents have occurred which show that this question is not dead, but is only sleeping,' There are, indeed, Signs that the : time of wakening is not very remote. Very audible growls are. heard from the farming population, who are now beginning to feel the pressure. A movement is in progress to agitate for the repeal of the .duties on reapers, and binders. The agricultural societies throughout the country ato appointing delegates to meet in Melbounio in August, at the time of the horse parade, for the purpose ,of considering the beat moans of getting rid of the obnoxious impost. At the last meeting of the Echuca Agricultural Association some of the farmers spoke their mind pretty freely. One speaker complained that “ the farmer was most unfairly handicapped, as ho had to pay 20 per cent, duty on all implements imported by him ; and yet they were forced to compete with South Australian wheat growers* who bad none of those taxes to pay. The farmers now felt it, and at next election would vote for freetraders only.” Another gentleman ** believed the 20 per cent, duties charged to farmers a regular swindle. If ho wont to ask to have any duties repealed, ho Would go in for the whole hog. It was most unfair to make the farmers pay .20 per cent, for every implement they used, and he could not see-what return the'farmdrs got for paying .this tax. - It was a ruinous rate of taxation to pay, especially m £he face of the fact that wheat should bo likely to fetch a low price for some years to come. A threshing-machine had to pay duty

to the amount of about £120.” Another gentleman hoped that . when their delegate was iu town he • would talk about the tax of Is. per dozen on bags that farmers were obliged to pay 1,0 support two manufacturers —Messrs. Miller and McPherson. It would have been far cheaper for the’ farmers to have paid these men £SOOO not to start in business, which would only have cost about Id. per acre to every farmer; but' now the tax for. protecting these two bag-makers amounted to 2d. per cultivated acre to every farmer iu Victoria. Other complaints of a similar character, which we need not repeat, were loudly made, and there seemed to be a very complete agreement of opinion as to the effects of the present tariff upon farming. On the othej side, some Gippslandera have interviewed Mr, Berry on the subject of hops. Their case is that there are about 120 acres iu that district under hops ; that the speculation does not pay, and that the present duty ought, therefore, to be doubled. It seems somewhat hard that the price of all the hops that are used in the country should be raised- in order that the owners of these 120 acres may be enabled to continue to produce an unprofitable crop. We fail to perceive the necessity of these gentlemen persisting in growing hops. We presume that this is not the oqly product for which their land is fit. Nor do we see what advantage the public is to gain by paying a large sum to induce these hopgrowers to carry on a cultivation which, on their own showing, it is best to abandon. However, Mr. Berry thinks their request not at all unreasonable. He does not contemplate revising the tariff this year ; but when next year comes—why, then we shall aeq what we shall see. Ho did not promise, nor was he asked, to reduce the cost of pro-’ duotion by altering the taxes that press so heavily on the farmers. The hop-growe.rs, however, may take comfort. They complain of being swamped by Californian hops, grown by cheap Chinese labor. Probably, before the time for his revision of the tariff has arrived, Mr. Berry will have removed that difficulty. His well-directed efforts have already done not a ’ little to ■ reduce the value of Victorian labor.

Further, we have an authoritative statement of the objects and the expectations in matters of financial policy of the great Liberal party. We suppose Mr. Yeomans, the secretary of the National Reform League, speaks as one having authority. He believed that the country would never be satisfied until such an alteration (f.e., in the tariff) was made that there would be an actual prohibition on all goods which could bo manufactured in the colony, and the repeal of all duties ,<ju goods that could not ha made here. Snob a policy must ho adopted and o u-ried out until there was really no reven -efrom the Customs, for they did not want their revenue’from, the Customs, but from the land.” We commend this very frank statement of the Liberal policy to the farmers, not only of Echuca, but of the whole country. It is proposed that they shall pay extra prices for every article that they use, for the purpose of securing that these articles shall bo manufactured in the country. It is further proposed that the whole Custom-house revenue shall be abolished, and that its amount shaU be raised from laud. That is, the farmers must pay at least their share. The Customs.' revenue amounts to about a million and three-quarters. The land tax will hot produce £150,000. Even it this tax were trebled, as Mr Longmore proposes, a very respectable balance would remain, which the farmers must make good. We congratulate the farmers upon the good times that are iu store for them. They cannot hereafter complain that they have been deceived. They now know what they have to expect, and if they .like it, they have only to support Mr. Berry, and to elect Mr. Yeomans on the next vacancy.