The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1886. CHEAP RAILWAYS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1473, 27 February 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1886. CHEAP RAILWAYS.

Mr W. L. Duncan, of Kakahu Bush, contributed to our issue of the 16th instant a letter commenting on the Cheap Railway Scheme which we recently published. Mr Duncan possesses great capacity for transmitting his thoughts to paper, and much natural ability, and consequently we are surprised at his letter. Instead of dealing with the question at issue ho wandered into the vast subject of Protection versus Freelrade, and was not over coherent in the remarks he made. He says “ I cannot see how railway charges are to be reduced, and local industries benefited, in the way yon propose, because if the 10 per cent, is paid and importation goes on all the same it wont help local industries, and if the 10 per cent, has the effect ot stopping importations then We won’t have the money to apply to the railways as yon suggest.” The importations must go on until industries to supply their place are established—that Mr Duncan must admit. That would take three years nl least. We should lave the revenue for tbe purpose suggested in the meantime. During this time the traffic on tbe railways would increase, the building ot factories, etc., would employ labor, and when llie native industries became established, the railway freights on hememade products would make up for any diminution in the revenue from Customs. As fast as importations decreased local production would increase, and so would the traffic on the railway. We import into this colony yearly very nearly £8,000,000 worth of goods, and competent authorities hold that £4,000,000 worth of these goods might eas’ly h< manufactured in New Zealand. That £4,000,000, would give £IOO a year to nearly 40,000 men. Let Mr Duncan reflect on this, and ask himself: Would not that increase the railway revenue to an extent that would make op for any decrease in the Customs ? But we do not believe the imports would decrease. For instance, if we manufactured £4,000,000 worth of goods in this colony our imports would not be diminished by that amount. No one

who use* his reflective facu'ti'S would think so. To produce locally £4,000,000 worth of goods our population would require a great deal more of such good sas we can not produce than suffices for our needs at presmt, 'llie increase in the goods which v e could not produce would make up for the decrease in such goods as the local factories would supply, so that in reality it is doubtful whether there would he any diminuiton in the imports at all even though we were to manufacture £4,000,000 of goods locally, In 1879, Victoria imported £15,035 538, ; in 1884 she imported £19,201,633. Protection has therefore increased the imports of Victoria, although her own industries have been developed with surprising rapidity. This dim-dishes completely Mr Duncan’s objection to the scheme.

In reality Mr Duncan’s objection to the scheme consists in the fact that reference is made to an increase of Customs duties. He is evidently an uncompromising Freetrader, and he F determined to adhere to his principles whether they are right or wrong. Now the question of Protection versus Freetrade was not raised by the scheme at all. The contention of (he scheme is that all kinds of industries, manufacturing as well as rural, are heavily handicapped by the high charges made for the carriage of goods by rail, and that unless some relief was given from the crushing influence of these charges any increase made in the Customs would not be effectual in promoting local industry. The Government proposed to increase the Customs, and we hold if this were done the revenue thus raised ought to be applied to making the railways run cheaper. If this were done we hold that any hardship inflicted by increased Customs duties would be more than compensated for by the benefit of having cheap railways. There is one thing connected with the scheme. Whatever people in other parts of the colony may do, no man in South Canterbury should oppose il. If we had our railways running at half the present rates it would greatly increase the value of every article South Canterbury people have to sell, and decrease the cost of what they have to buy. The farmers, above all, ought to support it, because it would enable them to get their goods to Christchurch and Dunedin markets at half what it costs at present, and that would be a big item at the end of the year. However, that is not the question Mr Duncan seems disposed to discuss. He is a Freetrader ;he was born a Freetrader; he means to die a Freetrader, and that is all he knows or cares about the subject. In this article we cannot discuss that subject, we. shall leave it to some future occasion, and in the meantime we invite Mr Duncan to suggest some better scheme than that which he condemns for developing our industrial resources.