South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2475, 23 February 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1881.

As one of the results of t’he recent intercolonial Conference at Sidney, an effort is being made to con trast the industries of New South "Wales with Victoria in such a way as to prove that the free trade of the former has been a success and the protection of the latter a failure. To refute some of the so-called facts and figures that are cited by the pitiful champions of a worn out principle would only be a waste of time. We shall, therefore, dismiss them byremarking that they display a profundity of statistical ignorance almost as great, as the arguments that they are meant to support are misleading. It is a lamentable thing for the colonial free trader that when he looks round for an example whereby to demonstrate the practical advantages of his principle, lie immediately becomes bewildered. The colony whose tariff is such as to afford an illustration of free trade has yet to be discovered. It is a common thing to bear the epithet “ free trade ” applied to the fiscal policies of New South Wales, Queensland, and New Zealand, but the term is a misnomer. This has has been pointed out very frequently, but the apostles of freo trade cling so j tenaciously to their mild delusion that I

it would be cruel almost to disturb their faith. If they can reconcile ten and fifteen per cent ad valorem duties on imports, and export duties on coal, and wool,with free trade, it is probably as well, while pitying their ignorance, to allow them to nurse their favorite superstition. We will merely assert, and we challenge contradiction, that there is no such thing as a free trade colony, and that, despite their facts and figures, the tariff of New South Wales has has no more claim to the title of a free trade tariff than that of Victoria, The principal difference between the fiscal policies of the two sister colonies is that Victoria has been gradually putting her elder sister on the right track, and that she is now leading the way, with New South Wales following. Since, however, the apostles of free trade have thought proper to contrast the position of colonial manufactures in New South Wales with that of the same industries in Victoria, we will give them a few nuts to crack. What colony in the Australian group possesses at this moment the largest variety of manufactures, the greatest number of factories, and has the greatest number of factory operatives ? To which of the colonies is the credit due of being tbe cradle of the woollen industry which of late years has 1 secured a permanent and prosperous footing all over Australasia? Where were tbe first railway locomotives manufactured—in Sydney or Ballarat ? In what centre was the first paper mill established—Sydney or Melbourne ? Which of the colonies has at tbe present moment tbe most extensive fellmongeries, tanneries, agricultural implement works and carriage manufactories ? Whether is Sydney or Melbourne, in a commercial sense,the most important or prosperous ? Which of tbe two colonies has led the way in nearly every kind of manufacture that has been established ? We leave the advocates of free trade to answer these questions, and to deny if they can that Victoria has taken her elder but slower and more backward relative by the hand, and pointed out to her tbe way to industrial prosperity. If we single out some of the leading or staple industries of the two colonies, it will be found that the artisans and manufacturers employed on them enjoy as great a shave of protection in New South Wales as in Victoria. The woollen industry, for instance, is fostered by a double set of duties. The manufactured fabric is taxed, if imported, and the raw material has to pay an export duty, if sent abroad. Here we have a double set of toll-gates on the highway of commerce, both of which the colonial manufacturer escapes. Then if we take the iron trade of New South Wales we find it is protected in a most remarkable and effective manner. The Government do not impose a heavy customs duty on the machinery that is imported, hut we find them actually advertising largely for locomotives to be manufactured within the colony, the outside manufacturer being excluded from the competition. If that is not protecting native industry with a vengeance, perhaps the advocates of free trade will suggest a better way of describing it. We might go on citing illustrations of the different methods pursued in New South Wales and Victoria to bring about the same result, viz., to keep the artisans of both colonies employed, and to maintain a similar standard of industrial prosperity. In the manufacturing arena the two colonies have been running a race, and the contest of late years has been exciting. But since the Government of’ Sir Gavan Duffy adopted a protective tariff, Victoria has had the lead and she still maintains it. The Victorian tariff is a straightforward one, because it embodies a sound economic principle. The tariff of New South Wales, like that of New Zealand, embodies no principle beyond that of extracting the greatest amount of revenue practicable out of the industrial classes and leaving them to compete with the criminal and pauper fed industries of Great Britain and America as best they may. Victoria embraces her native industries, and flaunts the flag of protection defiantly in the face of her free trade adversaries at home and abroad. New South Wales, with all her free trade professions, is a protectionist in disguise, who follows closely, if reluctantly, the footsteps of her more straightforward and more courageous contemporary. Which is the more worthy of esteem and admiration—a pronounced protectionist colony, or a colony which, in the name of free trade, taxes imports and exports indiscriminately ?