The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1886. IMPORTATION OF JAM.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1523, 9 December 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1886. IMPORTATION OF JAM.

The Press of last (Saturday published an article on the importation of jam. It says ; “At this time of the year, when there is a splendid promise of fruit in all the orchards, the question is a seasonable one, * Why import into New Zealand a single tin of jam V It is worse than carrying coals to Newcastle, for that proverbially unprofitable business at any rate does not cause any waste of the raw material, which the neglect of (he fruit industry certainly does. Tbe amount of fruit that is wasted is sinful, and the only way of avoiding the waste is for the colony to make its own jam. Tasmania derives quite a handsome little revenue from us. Tons of jams are imported into New Zealand from Hobart every year. Now that is not as it should be, and the question is, ‘ What is the remedy?’ Our Protectionist friends, of course, have their remedy. They would impose a prohibitive duty, and replace the indifferent but cheap Tasmanian article by an indifferent and dear local article.” On this the Timaru Herald of last Wednesday builds a curious and wonderful rigmarole which it no doubt wishes us to dignify by calling it a leading article. It quite agrees with the Press that it is not Protection that is wanted, and gets rather annoyed at the Press for saying that bad jam comes from Tasmania, Bat tbe senility displayed iu these matters would not haye been worthy of notice only that it goes on to advise in a motherly sort of way the proposed company at Winchester in a manner calculated to do mischief. In its ignorance of facts it says that “unless an excellent article is offered to tbe public at a moderate price, jam manufacture will fail again as it has done in (he past.” The reason it comes to this conclusion is that, “ To gay nothing of the cost of manipulation and tbe actual process of converting the fruit into jam, there are two other heavy items of expenditure which have hitherto proved great obstacles in tbe way of success. Both tins and pots are expensive, and so is tbe sugar, which has to be used at about the rate of pound for pound with the fruit,” and then it goes on to argue that Tasmanian jam is good, and that it is cheap, and that nothing but the most rigid economy can enable locally made jam to compete with it. This is well calculated to deter people from taking up shares in the proposed company at Winchester. The Herald could not go about throwing cold water on it in a more effectual manner, and it feels that it is doing, so because it says it is not “ penning these remarks for the purpose of discouraging our Winchester friends.” But (be remarks are calculated to discourage, and will doubtless .discourage «our Winchester friends ” and it appears to us that is what tbe Herald is aiming at. It never reported any of the meetings or in any way backed up those who set the project bn fool, and now it comes, in the guise of a friend, with “ a front of honey and a heart of gall ” to warn them them to be economical, Could not the old lady have had the good taste and tbe common sense to wait until the shares bad been taken up, and then lecture 1 Bat Mohammed held that “reason and senses were oat of the sphere ” of antediluvian ladies, and we could not expect “ she ” of the Herald to be an exception. If the Herald is not prompted by a desire to crush the project—and it looks like it, because it would prefer the industry to be started in Timaru—its reasoning must be set down as tbe result of stupid ignorance. It says in effect that because “ tins, pots, and sugar” are dear locally-made jam can hardly hold its own against Tasmanian jam. First of all, pots cost nothing at all. They are sold with the jam at more than their original cost. Secondly, Tasmanians must buy “ tins, potp, and sugar ”as well ns we must. Tins, pots, and sugar must be pretty well as dear in Tasmania as they are in this colony, then why should their cost be a drawback to us any more than they are to 'i »s----mania. Let no one be so week as to be led away by the stupidity of tbe Herald. Tasmanians have no advantage over us, and there is a duty of three half-pence per lb on jam, which ought to be a great drawback to them.

But the way in which the Press attempts to pntfin a good word for Freetrade and the way in which the Herald backs it up is certainly amusing. It says that to put on protective duty would mean to “ replace the indifferent but cheap Tasmanian article by an indifferent and dear local article.” Mark that. The Press raves about fruit going to waste in this country, and almost sheds tears at the amount of 'money which is goingjannually te Tasmania for bad jam, but says if we are to put on protective dnty the jam made at home must be dear and indifferent. Coder Freetrade it would be good and cheap, but under Protection it would be “ dear and indifferent.” It is most extraordinary the absurdities to which people are ready to descend to uphold an old superstition. Is it not more likely that the “ local article ” would be indifferent if it had to compete with an “ indifferent and cheap ” imported article, than if it bad the field to itself? But the best answer to the Press is supplied by the statistics of the colony, In 1879 we imported into New Zealand £49,490 worth of jams and jellies. There was only one penny duty on jam then, but in 1880 the duty was increased to three half-pence, with the result that in 1884 the values of the jams and jellies we imported was only £10,552. The increase of one halfpenny in the lb has resulted in keeping nearly £40,000 a year in the colony, and yet jam is at least one penny—some say twopence—per lb cheaper than it was in 1879. Now we ask the Press and the Herald, if this three half-pence per lb duty were taken off jam would it be possible to start a jam factory in Winchester? Certainly not. Then it comes to this : Three half-pence per lb duty enables us to manufacture jam, why should not increased duty enable ns to manufacture other articles as well? Logic and common sense must have been out picnicking somewhere when the articles in the Press and Herald were written. Nothing could be more silly than both are.