AUSTRIA AND PROTECTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8356, 17 February 1913, Page 11

AUSTRIA AND PROTECTION

REVOLT OF PROVINCIAL FARMERS.

The “ Korrespondenzblatt, of the Austrian Economical Society, recently published an account of a against tho present high protection policy on the part of the representatives of tho farmers ot several Austrian provinces. , The “ Korresxiondenzblatt said tnat a meeting was lately held at the Central Bureau of tho Agrarian League. The meeting was under the presidency of Baron v. Hohenblum, tbe leader of Austrian protection. Baron y. Hohenblum read a long report, in which ho required that not only should the present high grain duties he maintained, but that they must be increased. For the first time this high protection policy was now combated l ro j? within the Agrarian League itself. When the discussion turned on the rye and mnizo duties to be fixed m the new tariff the Reichsrat Deputy, Dr Okuniewski, leader of th© Ruthenian peasant party, declared that the maintenance of tho present duties is not in tho interest of the Ruthenian farmers. Dr Okuniewski showed in detail that tho farmers in East Galicia do not gain anything from tho high grain prices, and declared that he stood for cheaper grain and fodder. After Dr Okuniewski, a representative of the Italian Soutli. Tyrol farmers and a representative of ‘ the German farmers in the Sudeten country made declarations in tho same sense. This revolt in the Agrarian League led to a violent controversy. Baron v. Hohenblum reproached the revolters for destroying the solidarity of the party. The representatives of the farmers thereupon denied that their interests were solid with those of the Hungarian grain-growing magnates who alone profited from the high grain prices. The Reichsrat deputy, Baron y. Pantz, who started this farmers’ revolt against protection has issued a little pamphlet entitled “Zur Frage der Beforni der Zoelle.” The pamphlet exposes the harm done both tt> industrial and to agricultural production by the present high duties. “The High Protection policy, says Baron v. Pantz, “ has not in the least benefited production; it has rather been exploited by trust capital to limit production; and as result of limitation to drive up prices. It has therefor© had results contrary to those which a State should aim at from the economic point of view; it lias attained a price policy instead of a production policy.” Baron v, Pantz shows that the cattlerearing farmers are losing heavily owing to the high grain prices. As result of the high prices of fodder grain they are driven to sell their cattle at _a loss. The cutting down of the corn import duties would injure the great landed proprietors of Hungary,- but Austria has now “to choose between in jury to the great estates through the reduction of fodder duties, on the one hand, ot, on the other, .of seeing the ruin of her native stock-raising industry as result of the lack of cheap fodder.” Baron v. Pantz does not demand the entire abolition of duties. But he complains that the present tariff policy has ■brought with it •- “A restriction rather than an in, crease of production, no increase of incomes, but merely a redistribution of incomes within the country. It has had the effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.” : , - As for the prices which mil on the consumer, Baron v. Pantz says that as result of the rise' iji duties the Austrian harvest of 1907 cost tho consumer 450,000,000 kronen more than that of 1906. This though the harvest ..was smaller by 10,000,000 metre-centners. “There is,” says Baron v. Pantz, “a general rise in prices in the world market which we cannot evade. But as result of our monopolistic high protection policy there is also a specific Austrian rise of prices which we could get rid of. Therefore we must abolish tho duties bn industrial half-ready goods and the duties bn fodder, and set ourselves to reduce the duties on bread grains.” ■