PROTECTION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2103, 31 December 1885, Page 4

PROTECTION.

Tiik following letter lattly appeared in the (Jhustthnrch Press :—: — " Sir,— l feel s>uro you will parrlon me if I draw attention to some of your rcnarks while criticising Lord Salubury's declaration ill lih fair trade view-*, in your Saturday's issue. You say that onesided freo trade suits England very well under pome circumstances. While, for example, the policy of tho United States h protection, and that of England freo trade, the United Stato-, cm never be a serious riral to Engl md in tho other markets of tho world ; v hei'ea-s if both nation* had a fiee trade policy, the States might, in the opinion of competent judges run England \eiy close in the iacu for oomuieicial supremacy. Sir, this argument, to my uiiiid, will not hold good. The United States, by her protrctive policy, «ecmes to herself her own nurket, winch is a v<>ry largo one— about 55,000,000 people, and a homo market, well seemed by piotection policy, i» better to her than t<i have the ro-<t of tho maikets of the world to compcto m 13v having her own maiket secured, it enabks her to supply her own people, and after that is done place her surplus stock on the ether markets <>f tho world to compete, winch she is dointj with England in her own colonies, and to a Lugo extent in England's own market ; whereas if the United States adopted freotiade s>ho would hive to divide her own market with the world, and would only have the same cluiuci' of competing in her own ni nket a-, the lest of the vvoild. Now, Sir, would you not think tho Ameiicansa lot of fools to give up to the rest of tho woi ld what they lu\e secured for themselves ? I can assure you, Sir, they aie not such foools. Tliey have brought their expenence dearly, and now they intend to proht by it. They have had tteotrade three tune-, ftttico 1812, and they have learned what is good fi'i themsulio-. They hive had protection foi twenty-four yeaia, and they know that that policy is tho be-t for tlioir country, and they intend to stick to it. Altho igh the population has doubled in th.it penod, there lie plenty who remember the great depression of 1837, after fourteen yt>a»h of freo trade, and they will take good care that a similar depn'ssion will not occur again thi < nigh froo ti.idj. Then, again, you hly Engl md is the m.uket for all of our expoits, and '•he does not imp isc a sixpence of duty on them, and them ii no reason why we -should impose tho heavy duties on English good* which we di> impose. Now, Sir, uccording to your doctrine, we do not impose a duty on the English people for then goods coining into this market, because you always say the duty is paid by the consumer heie, and our people are taxed hcie in consequence. So, sir, if your iugumentn are coireet, v hat harm would it be to New Zealand if England should impose a duly on our product-, if the English consumer has to pay for it * Sir, I contend, aB m my foiniei letter, that the protection which the New Zealand protectionist wants is piotection to manufactured. He does not cue a btiaw, if he may be judged by his doctrines, tor tho agricultural and pastoral industries. Sir, I deny this statement, and assert that theie is no class of the community that receives more benefit from the protective policy than the fanner. If we take history for our guide, prctcction is the means of starting manufactures, and thus furnishing work for a large population with a purchasing power, which makes a good cash market for the farmer, which is tar better for him than to tend his produce to England or any other market, and have all his profits eat up with shipping charges, commission, &c. Sir, it is no use trying to deceive the fanner any longer. He can see foi himself, that having a cash market here f.u his produce is by far tho best for him. You will say wo shall not bo able to consume all the farmers cm produce for many years to come. (Granted ; but that is no reason why we should not do our bjst to make as laige and as good a market a» ue can for the farmer, and do no as quickly as possible, for them is plenty of need for it at the present tune. You accuse tho piofectiomsts of not c.armj» for the farmers' interest. Sir, I will ask you what you aie doing foi the farmers ; are you tiying to make a market here for their pioduce? I will answer for you— No. It i, you, and such as you, who are advocating freo trade, and depriving the people of work so that they hate to clear out to protected Victoiia for work, and thus deprive our fanners of thenmarket, that they havo a right to expect, an they have had to (ontributo towards getting these veiy men out here that are leaving, and are making a home in protected Victoria, thus benefitting the farmers of Victoria instead of those of Now Zealand. Then again, sir, you are always pointing out that by protection tho farmers h ive to p.iy more for their goods. I would ask you how much more the farmers have to pay for their reaper and binder twine now than they did before there wan a duty of 1."5 per cent put on? The farmers »vill tell you that they aro getting twine now for Kd or Ud that they had to pay 10 i and Is for before the duty was put on, and most of their twine is made in the colony by people that consume tho produce of the farmei. The money is kept in the cnuntiy, and the farmer gets soino of tho benefit of this money. Some of the money that they pay for the tw ine is returned to them in pui chasing their produce. Keid und Ciray are ii.akinf? n.apen and binders that aie taking the pn/.e for imported machines'. Tliry made seventy-six last year, and are selling them at £bo, and they say if theic was a duty of 1"> per cent, put on them they would at once i educe their puce to £V>. Uy doing this it would bo the moms of employing a very largp number of h inds, find keeping a great deal of monry hi the country, and would increase the market for the farmer. I could go on until further orders showing you bow tho New Zealand Piotectionists are trying to beiHit the farmer. Do not try to throw dust in the eyes of the fanner any longer, because ho is beginning to see thiough it. Thoy will hoi m learn who is working for their welfare better than you can tell them. Please excuse me for hitting haid and writing kiicli a long letter. By kindly publishing it you will oblige.— Yours, kc. A. (>. How LAND.