Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, JUNE 1. 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9460, 1 June 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, JUNE 1. 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

SO little is known of Mr Buddo that any speech of his is likely to be read with soma interest as a possible revelation of the reason for his inclusion in the Cabinet. His address at the.annual dinner of Canterbury A. and P. Association on Friday last gave him an opportunity of dis ; playing ability, if he had any, but it must be admitted that he entirely failed t 0 display an intelligent grasp of the situation. His explanation of the recent stringency in the money market was that hanks had gone outside their legitimate business and advanced money to make deposits on the purchase of land. Mr Buddo seemed quite to forget the fact that an increase of imports and decrease in exports amounting together ot abont four millions sterling, was a far more important factor in the situation than any advances on land, which would be called in in a time of stringency, could .be. On his own showing there has been no fall in the selling price of land, and, therefore, banks would have had no difficulty in securing the reduction of overdrafts due to the cause he mentioned. The new Minister repeated the argument [in his [[speech at Palmerston North as to the inequity of valuing land on its productive capacity, and said that he would maintain the old system, calculated on the selling value with an ample margin left for fluctuations. The Farmers’ Union seem to have dropped the idea of using the productive capacity as the standard of value and prefer to [take the capital value as the basis for taxation. This may bo the best means of saving trouble at present, but there can be no doubt that the productive capacity of land is easily gauged by an experienced valuer, and in Britain and other long settled countries is used as the basis for the determination of rental vlaues.

WE are glad to note that the Auckland Conference of the Farmers’ Union has adopted the remit sent by Olevedon branch as follows: —“That .immediate steps be taken to make the fifth plank the platform of our Union effective, viz., that taxation through the Customs should be for the purpose of raising revenue, and not for protective purposes.’’ This is the most important plank in the Union’s platform, and it is cheering to note that farmers are beginning to realise its importance. The mover of this at the Conference said: “There was no protection for their exports, , and the fictitious manufactures within the Dominion were such that eaoh’pound they got back only bought 13s 8d worth of goods. Speaking on the question of timber importations, he said that Oregon pine was brought Into New Zealand at a cost of 7s 6d, and sold at 17a 6d and yet they desired to put on another 2s duty.' Captain Oolbeck, |in seconding the moti'on, quoted a mass of figures in support of Freetrade. He that “the farmers sold at English prices, and bought at New Zealand ones. All they asked was tn be allowed to buy and sell at a natural price.’’ It is evident, however, that it would pay the Union to send a missionary among the .farmers to explain to them the real baneful effects of the policy of restriction, because we find one speaker to the motion expressing the opinion that the farmers’ difficulties would be solved by co-operation, while two others showed that they do not understand what a protective tariff does. One of these asked “Where were the vast snms to come from —at least two millions—if they took off protective duties?” The other said—- “ Take away the money raised by protective tariffs, and they would probably attempt to raise money by taxing the land further.” It is astonishing that it is net generally realised that one effect of a protective tariff must be to inflict loss on the Treasury, and the more effective the protection the greater that loss. Indeed if protection was absolutely effective the Treasury would have uo revenue at all from Customs duties. It is the protective duties which compel the Treasurer to put more burdens on the land. Make the tariff revenue-producing, not restrictive, and the Treasury might then be able to remove all burdens from the land, while at the same time obtaining much larger revenue than under present conditions.