The Southland Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 9; 1867.

Southland Times, Issue 707, 9 August 1867, Page 2

The Southland Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 9; 1867.

In all the legislation of New Zealand, the tariff, the most important of all has been- the most neglected. Framed originally, when there were but a few European settlers, and no producers, the object sought to be obtained was to raise the largest revenue from the importation of English products most in demand for supplying the wants of the Maori population. ' The march, of progress — advancement of the work of colonisation — has rendered a new tariff necessary. It is true that changes have from time to time been made, but no change that can be deemed satisfactory, has as. yet been attempted. At the present time, we have a heavy duty to pay on most manufactured, articles of general consumption, while those" products that can be produced in the country are free or only slightly taxed. A reform in the tariff is now, however, generally acknowledged to be absolutely necessary, and considerable earnestness is being shown throughout the colony to elicit a scheme that will lighten taxation, and yet be an impetus to native industries. This subject is now occupying the attention of the Chambers of Commerce of most of the large provinces, and a protection policy is strongly advocated. This has naturally called forth the opposition of the so-called free trade party, and the battle of Protection v. Free Trade, promises to be as warmly debated in -New Zealand as it is in Victoria | and other Australian colonies. The fact that New .Zealand is now growing more grain than can be consumed by the people, and yefc the market is filled with foreign bread stuffs, goes to prove that farming operations are likely to be compressed, rather than enlarged, if the colonial grower is compelled to compete without restriction with the grain countries — such as South America — where labor can be obtained at comparatively speaking a nominal rate, while here wages are at the very highest figure. The. Daily Times has declared in favor of the free trade party. From an article, bearing on the Eree Trade side,, we take the following : — " Monopoly modernised into the more euphonious phrase, 'Protection to industry,' scouted, by the intelligence of Europe, takes refuge in Federal America, and Colonial Australasia. It is really a pity that things cannot be called by their right names, especially when selfishness seeks to shelter itself under the guise of benevolence; for specious titles carry recommendations with them. If the

'Protection' advocated by many, were termed, what it really means, 'Monopoly,' stripped of its pretensions and presented simply as a naked truth, it would find few advocates.' " "We do not question the rapidity with which free trade principles are spreading in the old countries of Europe, .or that those principles are the best adapted to ensure prosperity to such countries as England, France, &c, — countrips^that have been densely populated for ages, where capital, science, and skill have united to reduce to the lowest possible amount the production of all things, and where labor is in great abundance.' But it must be recollected that it was under the ! fostering care of protection that those countries attained their greatness, and reached a position that enabled them to adopt with success the principles of Free Trade. There is no anology between auch kingdoms and newly colonised countries. During the early years of settlement a large expenditure of capital and labor is required in every branch of industry before any returns can be. obtained, the implements used are rough, and inefficient as compared with the elaborate and perfect machinery of long settled countries. Is it fair then to place the pioneer colonist in this position, having the powerful machinery, the unlimited capital of England &c, to be employed in out bidding him in his own market? Even more, is it fair or equitable that the colonists should receive the produce of America, a country that has a high protective tarriff, free, and even be called upon to compete with its prison labor ? The following passage from Mills' Political Economy (a Free Trader), that was quoted in the Duaedia Chamber of Commerce, places the question fairly before us. It says : — '' The only case in which, on mere principles of political economy, protective duties can be defensible, is when they are imposed temporarily (especially in a young and rising nation), in hopes of naturalising a foreign industry, in itself perfectly suitable to the circumstances of the country. The superiority of one country over another in a branch of production, often arises only from having begun it sooner. There may be no inherent advantage on one part, or disadvantage on the other, but only a present superiority of acquired skill and experience. A country which has this skill and experience yet to acquire, may in other respects be better adapted to the production than those which were earlier iv. the field ; and besides, ii is a j^ist remark, that nothing has a greater tendency to promote improvements in any branch of production than its trial under a new set of conditions. But it cannot be expected that individuals should .at their own risk, or rather to their certain loss, introduce a new manufacture and bear the burden of carrying it on till the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes are traditional. A protective duty, continued for a reasonable time, will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment. But the protection should be confined to cases in which there is good ground of assurance that the industry which it fosters will after a time be able to dispense with it ; nor should the domestic producers ever be allowed to expect that it will be continued to them beyond the time necessary for a fair trial what they are capable of accomplishing." This sentiment, we believe, is thorougly endorsed by the liberal Proteptionists throughout the Australian colonies. They neither seek to secure a monopoly or to perpetuate any system longer than it may prove conducive to the progress and prosperity of the country. The Free Trade advocates advance as a great objection to protective duties that it increases the cost of the chief articles of food. This, in the very early settlement of a colony, to some extent may apply ; but when a country produces within its bounds a sufficiency of any article to meet its requirements, a protective duty serves only to steady the market and prevent those sudden, and frequently ruinous fluctations, that invariably arise from a reliance upon foreign importations. For instance, take the article of flour. If, during -one year, large importations should be made, and the price fall to a figure extremely low, the tanner may become depressed and not sow the quantity of wheat he had previously. What may be the result? Experience proves that the next year would likely $>c. one of fluctuation, and the high prices ranging, more than overbalance the low ones of the previous year. It is the same with every other article. Those in New Zealand who have been styled protectionists simply seek such a reform of the tariff as will tend to foster those industries that are most likely to be developed and to lower the duty on articles that cannot be \ produced in the colony. It is not the agricultural interest only that they seek to advance but native industry of every

class. "What is it that prevents our manufacturing leather, paper, woollen cloth, and similar articles ? Free Trade. "We are called upon to compete with old countries that, from a long enjoyment of legitimate protection have become enabled to invest largely, and manufacture cheaply. Weonly askfor New Zealand the same opportunities. The expenses of its colonization necessitates heavy taxation, and to render that taxation as far as possible bearable, the encouragement of colonial industries should ever be the chief aim and object of colonial statesmen.