PROTECTION AND THE FARMERS.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2049, 25 August 1885, Page 2

PROTECTION AND THE FARMERS.

1O IHh KDiroit. Sin, — As Fret' Tiade \. Protection is .it present agitating the minds of many of your lc.idoi-. I crave space m y<»ir journ.il to \cntilate my opinion a little fuitlicr on the matter. Now, at- I am the friend refeired to by Mr I'm rest in his last letter I v\ ill give in "extenso what I stated about tlie baneful effects of Protection. It instated m the prospectus of the proposed new woollen f ictoi y ab>)iit to bus commenced at Onehungi that it will employ 300 hands and put £1.">0,000 into circulation annually. My argument is thac if £1.">0,000 woith of woollen goods e\tr.i is produced in New Zealand, tT»0,000 less will be mipoited. Consequently, as the duty is about IS p-r cent, £27,000 less revenue will be raided fmm tins somto, winch of course w ill cause a deficiency. Now w e shall ha\ c to piylB percent 111010 foi out woollen goods, because the manufacture is will not undei sell the imported article, which means wesi-.all have to pay £27,000 more for our pood- than if they came in duty free. This deficiency m the revenue will have to be met fiom some othei Miuice. Theieforo we shall bj paying f) 1,000 extra, for the pi i\ ilege of making our own woollen fabrics in this one factoi v, and this will ocelli wheiover a mill is established. Now let us tiy to find out wh>ie the benefit would come in:— "3oo hands will be, einployod." Now we are not for a moment to suppose that so many flush people would be brought into the colony. All that would bo iequned would be a few skillid aitisjns, the rest would be alwub'd from the people all leady hero. We will s.iy foi argument's sake that 100 new people would be iutioduced. Their spending power upon whit we raise heie would not average more than 7s per week e.icli. This would give a sum of £1,520 per annum. 1 may bo w long in my deductions, but if I am evei so much out m my calculations I think what I have stated points o:it th it wo have nothing to gam but all to lose fiom Piotection. Protection reduces the spending power of the people. I think that it customs duties weie altogethei aboli-hed upon the necessruies of life, and a land ta\ imposed instead, (not upon the improvements put upon the land), then we should have a revival in trade and the depression now existing would soon pass aw ay. My reason for stiting this is that £1,410,000 was raised fiom customs duties last year, which alone is neaily £3 pei head p.-i annum. What an impetus to tr.ide would be given if the puiehasing power of the ma*.-, of tho people was only increased by this amount. Now, jr-the bulk of our p >pul.ition aie agriciiltinists, it cannot by uny means to be tlu'ii mteiests to have Piotection. To my mind it is just as reasonable for him to ask for a bonus upon e\eiy bullock lie raises, or every bushel of wheat he giovvs, because ho in not caiiying on his occupation to a profit, as it is foi the manufacturer to seek protection on the goods he manufactures. The farmer cannot get piotection as no one thinks of nnpoiting his commodities. Therefore he should go in for a bonus. Again, it is agreed we need population to consume otu pioduce. Now the population has mci eased by a couple of hundred thousand in the last ten years. Arc we any better oft? Pop* not the rate of production incieasp beyond the consumption? And depend upon it this state of things will go on for a long time yet. Just let anything the farmer produces bring a good paying puce, in twelve months you will have abundance and a prent induction in consequence. Now, I think we shall make a n istake if we look to Protection to bung us prosperity. To my mind it will only intensify tho depression. What we need is better legislation, less borrowing and reckloss expenditure. A nation, the s-.une as an individual, must come to grief if it spends more than it earns. Tho agiicultuiist need have no dread of a tax upon the nniinpioved \.iluo of his land. What do wo find taking place at the present time, ? Why, all the world o\er land for agricultural purposes is depreciating in value, for it is a truism that land is only woith as much as it will produce, and from what can be discei nod ahead the producing power is e\er augmenting. This means the world is growing more wealthy, but that wealth in being concentrated into coinpal atively few hands, and must continue to do so under our piesent economical systems. Tho wealth of tins colony consists mainly of agricultural pioduce, but it is .so manipulated from the (Jo\ eminent downwards that precious little is left to the producer when he pays all demands. Let us go no further ahekl than Auckland, and we find that a small piece of land in (,(upenstrcet with a- 13 foot frontage bunging moip money than the best 000 acre faun with all its improvements in tin* Waikato. Now as wealth is only accumulated labour, cannot we plainly see wheie the leakage is taking place ? I think I am right when I state that it is with meat difficulty that a farmer can make ends meet out of even a good farm, while we can sen a small patch of lan 4 bunging in fiom £.'5OO to £1000 per year, without any l.ihom on the pait of the owner. Let us nut hn deceived. All these giand buildings in Auckland and othei cities are built out of the wealth won from the eai tli by the industry and toil of the people, mid I think the time has now ai i rv ed when the people should demand :i j «t share of that which they pioduce, that i», the the unearned increment in the value of the land. I am told that the Iloyal Commission appointed to enquire an to the cause of the depression now ousting in England ha\p recommended Fail Tr.ide an a, reniojy. Thin means that unless we allow Kughsh manufactures to come into this colony duty free they will le\y duties upon .ill we send them. I suppose Protectionists will rejoice over this triumph of then* theories, llut I should like them to point out how it will benefit this colony ?— I am yours obediently, John Pakh, Hamilton, August 21,