FREE WADE VERSUS PROTECTION. TO THE EDITOR.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2030, 11 July 1885, Page 3

FREE WADE VERSUS PROTECTION. TO THE EDITOR.

It is cleat ly seen she does not send inonev to pay for the Luge excess of unpoits. Then how is it accounted for ? In many ways. The largest portion is paid for by the expoits, the rest will include intcie>t upon English monpy invested in Ameiica, and labour exerted there, payment sent Homo, and payment for English ships curying Aineiican goods. Fiom 18)4 to 1883, both inclusive, England's import-, ha\e exceeded hei exports by the enormous sum of about €2, 0UT, 000. 000. Her wealth is reputed to be £1,."K)0,000,000. The->e'figiues speak for themselves, and need no comment of mine. I fail to t-ee any connection between locomotion and fiee tiade or piotectioii. Mi Fouest asseits that England's fiee trade pohev. accoiding to wise political economists (I should like to know then name-'), would ultimately be <it the expense of the English labonier and artisan. Fiom personal knowledge of the working classes of the Xoith east of England, I can only s iy if they hate and are suffering fiom the pu'sont depression it is owing to then own tlniftlw-xnesN, foi wages, on the avciage, (lining the last 12 yeai-. have been good Fiee tiade has given the English woiking man cheap food, clothing and shcltci, ami good aveiage wages. Now turn to Aniencn, and how do her labour markets stand 1 ' B'lth for woik and wages they aie at a low ebb. Theie aie thousands out of employment in the nianufactuiiug Living costs moro theie than in .uiy other coimtiy. From recent letters in some English papeis, I Hud her ngriniltuial labourers work from daylight until dark, and for poor wages. The only trim foundation of Ameiica \ prosperity is her immense natural icsouices, not her commercial policy. But hei people aie awakening out of a sleep which has alie.idy cost her immense loss, and which goes on increasing year by year. President Cleveland is a "fiee tiadei." So they are gradually but surely seeing the enors of their ways. Amend, a-, a free ti ,ide nation, could almost beat the woild in cheap production. France is a protectionist nation, and are not thousands of her labounus demanding work or bread ? Look .it the condition of the working classes of France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, &c, — and all are protuctiomst countries. To my mind, national wealth and happiness depends in a very large degree upon an enlightened agriculture, and I ask wh.it effect protection will ha\e upon the agriculture of this country ? The ti.ost disastious ; foi our chief markets aio thousands of miles away. Theiefore cheap living and cheap production aie absolutely essential to our wel faie. I am surprised tliat Mi Forre-it, asafnimt'i and co-operator, should be found ende ivouiingtocnt hi* own throat thiough advocating the system of robbery called pi otection. Ask the fanners of the far West of America if they believe m protection ? What is the meaning of the phrase " Protection to Native Industries. ' It is the piohibition, or the discouragement by heavy duties of such foiei^n commodities as are capable of being produced at homo. The theoiy based upon this meaning is, that to buy things produced at home is a national benefit —to the few; and the introduction of foreign commodities generally a irituin.il loss — to the few. Thecudmal doctrine of free trade is, th.it the maximum development and efficiency of the entue industrial .system of any community is attained by each branch being left as much as possible fiee to find, and to make the best of itt> own opportunities, and that the fostering of any ono iudustiy, by the establishment of pi otectivp duties on the impoits which compete with it, neccssanlv woiki ti the disadvantage of otheis, to such an extent as to materially dimiuixh the effective pioductiveness of the whole .system. I place the^e doctrines in juxtaposition for the benefit of your leader*, that they may lead and think. In reading the theoiy of piotectioii, thev. must omit the words " to the few." International tiade does not take place, except when it is, economically bpeaking, a national good, by causing the same amount of commodities to be obtained ;it a smalli l cost of labour and cauital to the countiy. To prohibit, thcrefoie, this impoi tation, oi impose duties which piewnt it, is toiendeithe labour and capital of the countiy less efficient in production than they would otheiwise be, and compel a waste of the diffeiuncu between the labom and capital necessary for the home production of the commodity and that which is lcfjuiied foi pioducing the things with which it can be purchased fiom abioad. The amount of national loss thus occasioned is measured by the excess of the price at which the commodity is produced, over that at which it could be impoited. Commerce between nations is virtually a mode of cheapening production ; and in all ouch cases the "consumer" is the peisou ultimately benefited. Or, to put the matter in a diffeient way, when the productions of a home industry (as New Zealand agricultural product 1 ) aie exported abroad (way to England), and sue there exchanged for the production of other countries (as seeds, manures, cotton and calico goods, etc.,) which are brought back or imported into New Zealand, these imports become for the homo community the effective productions of tho nxpoi ting industry. I dare not trespass further on your good nature, Mr Editor, otherwise I should like to give the argument in favoiu of protection, and then on the othei hand, show how they have beon met and icrefuted by free traders'. But 1 lecommend to your readuis caieful study the following cheap and good books on Political Economy : — Mrs Fawcett's Political Economy for Beginners, 2s fid ; lutoinatiim il Trade, by Sir John Phou, 3i l)d. The liighout cloua buoks

are by Arlatn Smith, 3s (Id ; J. S. Mill, ~>s ; Pio. Fawcett, 12-, ; Mr Macleod, 27s M. Mr Foriest says : — "At market cl.iy* and at chuich gates, the one enquiry h, What is to be conic of us?" Is Mr Km rest a piotectionist, .vnd yet utters a queiy, Inch is a condemnation of it ! Aio not the F<ugli>h and Ameucan farmers " piotected " against competition with us by the prohibitive tariff* of thp Shipping Companies, whose steanieii and ships trade between Kngl md and tln> country. Are not tho Waikato fai tier-, piotected against the We-it Co.ist farmers Ivv the tariff-* of another Shipping Company ? Aie notCantjibiuy faimeis protected by an unjust Railway Tai iff, which places them on »n equahtj with the Waik.ito fanners in the Auckland inuket, and at a \ciy great .id vantage in niukcts outside of New Z»al nicl ' And then is not the old system of Shylock's which exist-, between the farmeis and the coiiMim^is anotliei sort of piotection '! Smely Finie>t should ha\e had enough of piotection. I know the countiy is much deposed, but I blame the farmers for it. Aie they not mere puppets in the hands of middlemen, who live out of them. Look to youi Co-opei-atne Society. Thine is a level to work at— a power sufficient to lai^e you into piospeuty. Look at tho puce-, of flour and bieid, and on the othei hand at wheat, and at the juices consuineis pay foi meat and milk in Auckland. What do the f.u nii'i •> pet ' Cotisidei the puces of English mutton, ind on the othei hand of New Zealand sheep, five pence halfpenny per lb. foi New Zealand mutton in England is a g>od pi ice, but not when three pence hdt penny and four pence goes to fretvinp, ni-uianee, Shipping Companies, New Zealand and English Cm-ini-Mon Apuits. Tjie stitistics given are from the " Financial Refoim Almanac."— l am, &c, Nn. Dfs]-h{\ndim. I TeAwamutn, 7th July, 1S8">.