FREE TRADE OR PROTECTIONWHICH ?

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2052, 1 September 1885, Page 3

FREE TRADE OR PROTECTIONWHICH ?

l(> IUK I 1)1 1OK. Sik, One w mil as a fin.il leply to "Nil Dcsjii i uuiiiiii'' on tin- above topic-. To reply to all tho subjects opened up by 11 1 ■ -. two long lettois would only tnc your p itience and that of ymu lu.uliis. So I shall continc myself to a bnef comment on one or two salient points tli.it ho touches up, in. To me the whole subject appeals to stand thus : 1 -it Is it beiK'h'u.il or desirable t') establish in inufacture.s in our midst to conveit our raw products into manufactnrcd goods? I think there cm hi but one answer to that question— Yes, ceitaiuly. Then followH another: Will iFieo Tiade or a Protective policy best help to accom plish this end? Now, whatovei dilfoienccs of opinion may exist ua to the t?i>oeial form of Piotection to be afforded, there are \eiy few wlio will deny that to initiate any gieat industry in u now country like this soar; form of piofeetion must be tixtended to it. This has been in effect the whole sum and substance of my contention, and U a ])<>int which " Nil Desperanduni" studiou.sly evade*. His long quotations on lice Trade and I'rotection in America arc beside the point. American manufactures have advanced with such Ki^ra-titic strides, and are now no firiulv established that piotectiou is lei longei needed, its sole end and aim lining m fact accomplished. The American States are now capable of hold ing their own against the, most powerful commercial ii\als; tlieiefnie Piotection may in t only now be useless, but as " Nil Despeianduin'' laboms to pio\e -positively lujiinotH. It i .uses iv smile, however, to be told by him that, despite, the fact of the ilhmit.ilile Mipply of ia\\ products in the States, nnd of the -killed labour and m ichinri\ to maniifactme such, yi t I'io tec tioii, w Inch only lays an impost on vv hat t'oi s into the conntiy, keeps tiade pai.ily-ed and inannfiictuicis idle, notwithstanding th.it all the m nk< t-i of the mnid <ue open fii the « ile of their w.no. It would ini//,le a Philadelphia law\ei to undei«tand how sulli a losiilt could bts ai lived at. I mint passo\ei such cni'liti -s ,n the .statement that "it is not po-s,ble to <.\ei-pio-dute any of the nece->s,u iys of lif.>"(farme.rs' produce being in my former lettei quoted as b-jing co- incidentnlly abundant thiotighoiit the world, aid therefoie at abnoim.illv low Kites) Suiely the veriest tyio ought to undei stand tli.it the over-production of anything tends to lower its oidmaiy standard value. I now come to the last (and most impoitant point to us fanneis) subject in his letters on which I shall touch, \i/. : "That protection is especially ruinous to farmers." As in this asseition he i- joined by Mi l'au in a recent issue of the "Tunes, 1 " I intend to closely sci ntinise the statement. First, I will take Mr rail's own illnstiation of the raw is regards the pioject»d woollen factory in Auckland. Supposing his est! mate of the number of Ii mds to be employed therein be conect, vi/., 300, that ineins at lenst nn additional 100 of \aiious tiades and callings (f.umeis e\cepted) whose cntiie sei v icss would be lequired by those 300 operative*. Now, those 400 person* would. I estimate, spend 10s each weekly on farm produce, in manner somehow as follows (I assume each ban an aveiage family of tluee) : Wheat for bre id, 2s (id ; butchei's meat, 3s; potatoes, vegetubles, batter, ejrtrs bacon, milk, &c, h (id ; in all, 10s. This means t2OO woith of funi pi iduce consumed weekly, oi, say, tIO.OOO |ier annum. Added to this there i.s the additional m.'iket opened up foi the f.u meis' wool, to say nothing of ha\ ing strong clothing to wear in-tead of the impoiteil shoddy. Now, per contra, 1 will again take Mi Purr's estimate of a loss of t'27,000 to the revenue tlnoiigh the, opeiation-t of the factoiy (hoiv he came to double it find make it api cii £.")-J,OOO I don t understand.) Now, f umeis not l)i»ing quite one-touith of the population (vide last census rptninw}, would have to pay, s;iy, £0000 of this amount, oi little nioie than half the .unouut deiivcd from the, sale of then produce. My own opinion \-i that it would scaicely be a thiid when the advantages of having a lc.uly market for their pioduce nnd th< ir wool is coiisideied. No doubt I shall be told th.it p tying a thud of the gioss pioceeds of then (aimngs fioin the woollen fuctoiy as th"ir quota of State pioti'ctinn accoidi d to it, is, .iftei ull, making fanneis pay veiy dear foi their whistle. 15ut how much will they receive to credit account in paying unpoitcis the Maine amcunt of £(!000 tovvauls the levcnue? Absolutely not a sixpence. And what is wori>e, the whole co-'t of the linpoi ted goods, less the £0000 Customs revenue, leaves the count! y instead of circulating among his own opeia tivcs, and mi continually lefie-'liing the pulsating springs of home tiade. f will let mv biothei farmeis judge for themselves winch system would be most beneficial for them, in the foregoing lllustiatiou the data I use and the conclusions I arnve at are somewhat different fiom M^r Parr's, who, while allowing the factory 300 operatives, only ci edits it with the wages of 100, a thing manifestly alvtnrd. Uesides, he makes no allowance, whatever for the manifold trades and callings that would be directly stimulated by the employment of such a laige number of men pursuing one avocation. His doubling the Protective nn post of £27,000, and making it to appear tT) 1,000, is an error I have before noticed. There aie many other branches ot industiy, notably the iron tiade, that if once fan 1 v established hero would show still moie to the advantage of the farmer, inasmuch as many k!nd» of Won and «>f iron p"<>d-i ntn duty freo, and thus the revenue to bo made good, would be correspondingly less. Kveiy farmer knows that the stai ting of the beet sugar industry on a largo scale would seni eely bo disadvantageous to farmers. The loa* of revenue arising through the home manufactured sugar, and which farmers among other* would have to make good, would, in comparison to the benefits accruing, be a mere bagatelle. The fact is theie is not an industry to be named but w Inch, if started on a- good basis, would prove beneficial to the farming classes, since evtuy art, every industiy alike draw their chief supplies from what thn soil pioduce#. Now, let farmers judpo for themselves, Freo Trade or I'iotection— which ? — I am, yours obediently, \V.\i. Johns. August 31st.

Hs' Mr J'lhn Snirtli, Morrinstillo, i rowirrl is offered for t'le recover) of .1 dark brown gilding.