The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1889. PROTECTION FOR FARMERS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1855, 19 February 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1889. PROTECTION FOR FARMERS.

The prophets who have foretold very frequently that Victoria would soon be ruined by Protection have not been a success. Victoria, like America, has tried Protection, and the more she has of it the more she wants of it. Her farmers, too, are falling m with it, and, instead of crying out for Freetrade, they are crying out for Protection to the hilt. The Victorian Farmers Protection Association, in the manifesto which they hnve adopted in view of the general, demand an ad valorem duly of 25 pen- cent, on oil live stock and dead meal imported into the colony and no allowance for drawback ; duties of 3-t per cental on «U imported cereals, peas, and maize; £1 per too on potatoes ; 2s per dozen on condensed milk, 41 per lb on bulk cheese and bacon, and 3d per doz<m on eggs. Also a system of light railways and tramways to develop the resources of the colony in sparselypopulated districts', and a national system of irrigation carried out on the same financial basis as the public i ail ways of the colony, the consumers ot water being only chargeable in proportion to quantity used Also substantial reduction m cost of carriage of agriculture produce, artificial manures, and live stock on the Victorian railways ; a bounty on exported wheat, to be determined on a sliding scale; State bonuses to encourage establishment and development of viticulture, fruit growing, and similar industries; protection of producers and consumers in Victoria for loss by adulteration cf any artificial food for human consumption, and from imitation of trade brands. While the farmers are thus demanding protection the Chamber of Manufactures have decided that Australian commercial unity should should form a plank m the Liberal phtform, based on intercolonial free trade and uniform If riff with Customs union. The circular which they have issued says this “would certainly effectual Tauch desired result, Australian federation. It is all very well for the manufacturers of Victoria to ask us to open our ports to them. They have established their industries on a firm basis; they have the command of a large amount of capital; their works are now in full swing, and they know that if we opened our ports to them now their competition would always prevent us from starting factories of our own. This overture which the manufacturers are making now is a deeply-laid scheme to secure amonopoly in the Southern Hemisphere. They see now that their milch, cow New South Wales, is beginning to awaken to the stupidity of her policy. For years Victoria has kept her ports shut against her, while New South Wales allowed Victorian goods to enter her markets free. The result has been that Victoria, which is only about one - third the size of New South Wales, has grown the more wealthy and the more populous of the two colonies.' New South Wales is awaking to the fact that it is an unwise policy to allow Victorian goods to come in free while Victorian ports are shut against her own goods, and the great question of the present general election is Protection. A few years ago Sir Patrick Jennings attempted to introduce a policy of Protection. He was defeated, by Sir Henry Parkes, and the question has been allowed to remain in abeyance since. A general election is now on in New South Wales, and it is very probable that Protection will win the day. This is what Victoria is afraid of. If a protective tariff is adopted by New South Wales, it will be a sore blow to Victorian manufacturers, aud this is the reason they are so desirous now of a Customs union throughout Australia.

The manifesto of the farmers, however, is likely to nullify their efforts. The farmers are evidently determined to go in for Protection to the hilt. We may say that this is characteristic of farmers in all Protectionist countries. In America the farmers are the most determined, unrelenting Protectionists in it, and now the farmers of Victoria are apparently taking a leaf out of their book. Do not these facts contain a lesson which our New Zealand farmers might well study ? They, as a whole, are Freetraders, but might they not ask themselves, Why is it that their class in America and Victoria are such thorough Protectionists ? The farmers in these countries have had years of experience of Protection : Are they favorable to it now because it has been hurtful to them ? There is food for reflection for our farmers in this. The common-sense view of the case is that Protection improves the position ot farmers, or else those farmers who have experience of it would not be so ready to foster and promote it. [Since writing the above, news has come to hand to the effect that the election in New South Wales has resulted in the election of 71 Freetraders and 66 Protectionists. Three years ago the majority for Freetrado was 36. Protection has therefore gained immensely, and it will be found that before very long it will be adopted. It is hardly possible for a party to carry on long with only a majority of five].