FARMERS AND FARMING. No. XX.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2149, 17 April 1886, Page 2 (Supplement)

FARMERS AND FARMING. No. XX.

Intimately iutorwoven with commerce h its freedom, for trade between nations must bo perfectly unfettered to produce the greatest good and the greatest mutual Lenefit to thebuid nations. This question of " f reo trade " is so great and of so much importance that I am afraid within the sr aco of this or even another letter I shall fail to bring it clearly home to the minds of our farmers. People look at it from so many sides, profi*., wages, production, exchange and distribution, with .ill thoir accompanying intricacies. I Khali endeavour to confine my remarks to the etfeut free trado has upon agriculture, .md what would be the effect of protection. By protection I do not mean any half measures of modified, but strictly prohibitive duties. Richard Cobden described free trade as "The International law of God Almighty," which I believe it to be. For my own part I cannot look upon protection but as a " mere euphemism for national degradation and spoliation." lam amused, as lam enre you would be, Mr Editor, could you but see mo now, surrounded on all sides by books, newspaper cuttings and pamphlets on free trade, protection, fair trade, &c. And the question with me is, not as to how I am to treat of this matter of free trade and protection, but how to condense my ideas into two letters, consistent with clearness. I am inclined, nay, I must discuss this question as it appears in print in the different newspaper* of this country. In my last letter J tried to make it clear that "all commerce is barter," that we simply exohange with the foreigner what we can produce better than he can for what he can produce better than we can, and both parties are benefited, or our wool, grain, mutton, etc., for fencing wire, manures, sugar, etc. tfrom what I can gather through the medium of letters and articles in papers the position of protectionists in this — or for the matter of that in any other country— is this, " Whether is it better to send our money, Say £1000, to j another country to purchase manufactured goods, and have only the goods, or to make these goods ourselves, and have the goods and £1000 as well." In this proposition we have no mention whatever of goods exported, but only that fallacy of money. Do these same individuals who adhere to the above proposition, think that we pay gold for all our imports, and. export all our productions for nothing. Poor deluded asses, to for one moment imagine that our farmers can pay gold for their wire, manures, etc., and after suffering from all the ills which surrounds their internal trading, are still sufficiently well off to send over £5,000,000 worth of their produce as an annual charitable contribution to foreign countries. If so, lucky arc they and very Cliristiau individuals. But it is not so; they merely exchange their own productions for others. I might reverse the order of things, and ask, " Whether is it better to send our mutton, wool, etc., to oilier countries in exchange for their cheap goods, or to keep, them rotting and dying in this country and at the same time be compelled to buy at a4O per cent, advance, inferior goods from our own protected manufacturers." Prohibit the importation of any of the articles necessary to the farmer in . any way, by a thirty three .per , cent, duty or more, and the farmer has every penny to pay in enhanced prices to home producers, or what coat him £1 now would cost 26s BeL under the duty, be- j sides still having the taxes to pay. Say he wants, for example to buy a ton of plain fencing wire, which now would cost £12 per ton ; thisarticie alone would require a 50 per cent, duty to protect it against foreign competition.- 1 take the 33 per cent, which brings the price of the wire up to £16, and taking fat sheep at 15s per head, it would require the sale of 16 sheep to cover the £12, and over 21 sheep to cover the £16. Thus for the privilege of being forced to buy from a home manufacturer he would have to give him five more sheep, than if he could have imported the wire duty free. And this is really what takes place in respect of every article with a duty upon it, whether it is only 5 per cent, or 50 per cent. And it is ten changes to one but what the colony-made wire would.be very inferior in quality. Hence under protection part of the annual productions of the farm, will be confiscated to the protected manufacturers. Hold ! cries the protectionist, you give only one side of the question. Are there no benefits to compensate the farmer for this outrageous confiscation of 33 per cent, of bis annual productions. I answer, not one. The only consideration in connection with this is the creation of a home market. I leave the matter of markets to come hereafter. But doesn't protection create vast hives of manufacturing industry filled with all that may enrich, ennoble or elevate a nation and, mak,e it truly great? At the expense of the consumer. The great Dr. Charming, of America, tells us, that an "unrestricted" international commerce we regard as the most important means of diffusing through the world knowledge, arts, comforts, necessaries, civilisation, religion and liberty. In fact, were it not for commerce, particularly since England adopted free trade, the world would be in a very benighted condition at the present time. The vast progress in the arts, sciences and manufactures would have been for future and more enlightened generations to develope. There is one very important thing in connection with this protection question with very vital consequences to laraie,r.3_»^w_hich, strange to say, has been entirely lost sight of. Suppose that' protection was adopted by this country, and a large quantity of our imports cuts off. Such an event would prove disastrous to our shipping. The large steamers and sailing vessels, now trading between here, Australia, America, and England, would be thereby deprived of fully two-fifths of their cargoes, if not more. Communications with other countries would not be so regular, and freight I iii consequence greatly increased against our farmers, with what result we need not enquire. For example, the shipping trade between England and America is carried on to the disadvantage of the western farmer, who has to pay more in freight upon his wheat, etc., in. consequence of vessels having, to goto America in .ballast instead of with a cargo, and return with the wheat. , 'Hence/under like circumstances, this country would decay, as its agriculture would be completely strangled. As to manufactures, who is there to support them,, if the farmers cannot live upon the landt Some of our protectionists run away with the insane idea that their policy, if adopted, would reduce the price of goods. They know, when they make this assertion, that it is absolutely false, and against all sense and reason. Do people pay less for what they want in America? No. For if goods can be produced in this country, to be retailed at a less price than they now realise, you may be sure we would be in no want of protection. In fact, just the reverse. Another view of the protectionist is equally fallacious, that wages are increased, and theieby the purchasing power of our population greatly enhanced, which couduces to tlsn w-lfaio of all, particularly fai'ineis. ilu U-im-liju gentleman, to whom X Imm: nil.i.l* «1 in former letters, told uu- Ui.it wages in Canada (which is a veiy iimeh pioteeted colony) were much lower than in New Zealand. Mr Editor, I tluiik it best to put the few statistics Hiavc gathered together on this point into print for the benefit of your readers, and also show up the fallacy of the money idea, or the theoretical view of getting gold for our exports, while importing none or few manufactured goods, but making everything possible for ourselves under the wing of protection. TJt Prosim,'