The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, MARCH 18,1880.

Temuka Leader, Issue 243, 18 March 1880, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, MARCH 18,1880.

Readers of Punch for last year will perhaps remember a full-sized picture entitled “ The Old, Old Sword.” It represented either Mr Lowe, Mr Fawcett, or Mr Gladstone, we forget which, unsheathing bis sword—the “Old, Old” one — bearing tho inscription, “ Free Trade,’ while at his feet lay manifestos labelled variously, “Encourage Local Industries,” “Reciprocity,” “Protection/’ and, alongside of them, the gauntlet (brown down. In a corner is depicted an old suit of armour on a pedestal, bearing 15io name of Gulden. The picture is a very good one, in Punch’s best style, and means simply the question of Free Trade; ;md Protection is not settled in England yci any more than it'was at the time of the' Repeal of the Cum Laws. There is every indication that it will soon he a burning question of New Zealand politicsOur industries are just devo-oping, and we may look for all sorts of log-rolling and pressure on members of Parliament to get them protected. In North Canterbury

vve befieve there is some sort of society in existence to look to the nursing of loca* industries, and at Sir George Grey’s meeting ia the Oddfellows’ H ill, Christchurch' when he touched on some fiscal we remember the rival shouts of “ Free Trade !” and “ Protection !” were about .equal in number and loudness. For our own part we believe in the “ Antipodean of Free Trade.”

It is no part of our purpose to renumerate the arguments in favor of eillu-r ; they will be found treated exhaustively in many manuals from both points off view. What we purpose to do is ratl.ei to take such cases as the Grcymmuh coal, or Kaiapoi blankets,or Southland timber,ami consider what w T e would gain or lose V.a a nation by protecting them. No one, now, will argue that prices will not rise. It is .proved by experience that everything vvil] become dearer by exactly the duty that is put on it. if imported goods continue to monopolise the market the surplus price comes back to the State as customs n venue ; and the net result is that the country is neither richer or poorer, but those who use the articles in question havo to pay more, and those who do not have to pay less than before. But Protect! n is not doing what its advocates seek from it unless it drives imported goods more or less off the field. It thus comes about that articles of local manufacture are sold at a higher figure than the imported ones were before the tariff was imposed. Presuming that our Government was ever foolish enouch to levy a protective duty on coal, we should have much’of the Newcastle coal superseded by Qreymouth, Kaitangula, Shag Point and the other native coals. All would rise in price ton per cent, say, if the duty was about that amount, A consumer of LIOOO worth of Newcastle coal would, if ha continued to use it,pay LIOO to the colonial revenue ; if ho used native coal he would probably pay from LOO to LIOO more than he used to. Where does this go? There is only one answer —to those whose capital is invested in the coal in lirjti'ics of New Zealand. Profits in coal mining increase, and wages in that rise. Similar reasonin' may bo used of timber, woollen manufactures, manufacture of hardware, otc., etc. The uet result would bo that one half of the capitalists of New Zealand—namely, those whose money was invested in protected industries —would flourish like so many green bay trees; wages, on the whole, would rise and a number of mining and manufac' uring centres would form large towns ; but here the blessings would cease. Everyone who used coal, who was partial to blankets in winter, or who used timber in any way, would suffer. There would be a sort of balance sheet of gainers and losers, the producers on the one side —the brighter one—and the consumers on the other. Ah long as one pro duced more protected goods than he consumed he wou’d be all right yet. The Greymouth coal man— whom we suppose to gat Protection first—would have to pay high for bis blankets, timber, and hardware, [and not get nearly such good articles as the imported ones into the bargain ; but then he was making an extra ten per cent, on his coal, so he would bo content. But Protection, {once it gets a start, must go on pretty well to the end of the chapter. Every man is a loser unless bis trade is protected, and some beautiful log-rolling <tnd stiing-puliing results in adjusting the tariff. Eventually, we have the Frenchman's ideal, “ All-round Protection,” where each man pays out exactly as much in higher prices of commodities as ho draws in from the sustained price of tho commodities as he produces himself. No man can possibly gain on a tariff properly adjusted on principles of “ ail round Protection,” and every man must lose by exactly tho amount wasted in collecting tho multifarious custom duties, not to speak of tho loss from shut, ting out tho cheap and good imported articles.

This is Protection carried to its logical conclusion. No man believes in it by the light of reason, unassisted by that other light—the light of pounds, shillings and pence. But so strong is becoming the feeling for Protection in interested quarters, that the latter light bids fair to obscure the former.

But tho most dangerous feature about Protection in a community enjoying a wide franchise is its popularity—quite a mistaken one, however—with working men. Wages are high under Protection it is said. And it is true to this extent that high wages must follow high profits. But high profits of industries at first protected get less and less as Protection becomes more “ all round.” Wages must take the same course, and cannot in the end be much affected. Even granting the nomina wage is high, the real wage—that is to say the commodities tho money wage will buy —is low, owing to the high prices. The cry that Protection keeps up wages is a fallacy, and it is a great shame it should be used at the hustings by men who know better, in order to hoodwink a too-confid-ing populace. “ Save us from the pauperlabor of Europe,” is the cry of the Victorian electors. But it is not Free Trade that lias caused “ pauper-labor ” in Europe —it is over-popubdion. The most straigntforward defence of Protection is that of (he Americans of the Western Stales. Pi*cy admit that the policy is expensive on economical grounds ; they

acknowledge that they pay 15 or 20 per cent temporarily to establish manufactures that, as far as pocket is concerned, they would be better without. But here comes their dcfeuc" : “We are building a gre A nation, therefore our manufactures must be manifold. We must not depend on others, or we shall debase the national mind.” That is very high spirited, wo confess. It just looks a little bit, though, as if a travelling company of Christy Minstrels were to say : “We won’t hire a piano for our entertainment, but we’il just knock together one for ourselves. We are not carpenters a bit, and our instrument will be no great shakes, and it will cost a lot mine than hiring one. But, then, wo must bo self-supporting, or it will be said of us that wo depended on others for ou r piano.” The antilogy run on all fours with premature surd protected industries. It is time men were learning !o despise local vanities. “ There is a growing belief that the noblest philosophy is to deny the existence of a moral right to benefit ourselves by harming others; and 1 that love of mankind must in time replace love of race, as that has in part replaced narrow patriotism and love of self.’’ • After all, it comes to this : Protection will make us citizens of Flow Zealand, Free Trade will make us citizens of the world.