FREE TRADE V. PROJECTION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2729, 9 January 1890, Page 2

FREE TRADE V. PROJECTION.

TO THK EDITOR. Sik,—ln Tuesday's issue Mr Ghas. Barwell takes exception to the leader in the issue of the 2nc ins!.. Referring to the duty on hoisery, he says the enormous tax on the imported article enables the farmer to demand for his wool a price from the manufacturer almost double that paid by his English eompeditur. Let us see how far Mr Barwell's statement is borne out by actual facts. I qunte from the report for 18SI> of the United States Commi.s-i.mßr of Agriculture, surely ns good an authoiity as Mr Barwell. In this report the hijjhe-t average value of sheep in any Stale or Territory was in New Jersey, where the average value was 31ols. 70 cents ]»-v head, Rhode Island aiming next with 3 l"ls. 75 cents, ami North Carolina lowest at Wo 1 . 28 cents. Out of forty-six States and Territories, in six only did the value per head of the .sheep touoh'SJuls. In twenty it was 2dols. and over, the highest being 2Jol«. 80 cents. In the remaining twenty it was Idol, and over, the highest being ldi.l. SO cents-; the average for the whole of the United States being Idol. 01 cants, or, in our money, 7s ll.}d. If Protection enables the faimurto demand such huh prices for hia wool, how is it the value pe.r head of his sheep is so low? Mr 0. B. Metoalfe, secretary of tho Texas Association, says—" I have known a number of shipments of wool to Boston, New York, and Chicago, and h'ivo never known a case where satisfactory returns have been obtained. It lias always ssemed that the commissioned men at those points ware working more in the interests of the buyer.*, their customers, than in that of their consignors, and the results have been long dolays, with an unending bill of interest, insurance, drayags, storage, coinmiasums, etc., which have proved most disastrous to the interests of the groweis." Mr Metcalte wrote this after eis?lit years experience as a wool-grower in Texas. The Western Wool Commiation Company, of St. Louis, in their circular say—" The wools from Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois, Winconsin and Tennesse were in excellent condition." _ V r et the average value of sheet) in these States was, respsctively, T4B, 1'57, I'GO, 215, 2'l'J, I'B9 and I'GO. It Protection enables fanners to demand high prices from the manufacturers, and the wool from these States was so confessedly good, how is it that sheep in them are of such low value ? Mr Barwell ignores the statement of low wages iu America and confines himself to the usual Protectionist platitudes about Home markets and employment for the people. If Protection benefits labour so much how is it that there have been so many strikes here in the various trades for higher wages since the new tariff was imposed'; As regards reapers and binders Mr Barwell leaves a hole in his armour

there. If they can be manufactured so cheaply in America they can be made or imported to sell cheaply here, for tha materials for their manufacture are admitted duty free. Surely if a, duty were levied, the price of the locally-madu article would go up in sympathy with the duty The same applies to materials for buggies. Mr Barwell surely "forgets that (I take a manufacturer's word for it) the material for these things has to be imported from America, or at any rate from the sis>t'?r colonies, and if a duty were levied on them we should pay more for them than we do now. There is no such thing as absolute Free Trade; there must be a duty fir revenue purposes. If things cannot be manufactured here to compete with foreign goods, the reply immediately i«, " wages are too high." ' Taking Mr Barwell's statement that Protection makes things so very | cheap wages must go down in a corresponding degree, and yet Protectionists say their policy raises wages, and the pi'ico of produce. As a matter of tact wheat sold in Kansas last month for 38 cents a bushel. True it was not the best quality, it ran only 54 lbs to the bushel, but even so, it is an absurdly low price. Tho best is only 45 cents. Why haa not Protection raised the prico there ? it has been long enough in vogue in America. If there is work for all who choose to go, why is America legislating against foreign labour ? And lastly will Mr Barwell tell us how it is that wages are better in England, and money is more evenly distributed among r thu artizan class since it became a Free Trade country. I am, etc., Fjjee-Tkadbu. 7th January, 1890. TO THE EDITOK. Siu,—l have been rather taken with Mr Barwell's letter on Protection in your last issue. If I am allowed to express au opinion, I think it would have had more weight if the signature had benn wanting. Isn't this the same Mr Barwell who wrote equally forcibly when the Customs authorities charged"him duty on his American machinery. This was an instalment of Protection, Mr Barwell. Of course the tariff was frnmod to catch machinery of this class, and it was intended to foster the manufacture of machinery in New Zealand, wasn't it, Mr BiirwtH? I have looked carefully through the tariff fiinco I read your letter, Mr Barwell, and I cannot hnrl anything that will prevent your importing machinery for starting the manufacture of wooden legs. Mr Barwell—a head of this material appears to have been already supplied.—Yours, etc., DuiUlY. Ohaupo, January Bth. TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—Man is a seltißh animal, there is no disputing this, it is not a matter of opinion as between Freetrade and Protection. I am a farmer as well as being selfish. I am not well enough up in the subject to discuss with Mr Barsvell the niceties of the question of Protection, or its details, or the advantages we hear at times claimed for it. I am only able to discuss generalities, and I am anxious to obtain information upon a subject that in the future is likely to hold a very important place in our legislature. Mr Barwell has bean in America, I am told, and he has seen the piaetiu.il u- irking of Protection, and, as I can sec by his letter ho must have studied the question thoroughly. In the course of his researches I have no doubt lie came across statistics, or he knows where to find them, and I shall be glad if he will reply through your columns, to the following: What proportion does the value of the agricultural produce (by which, I mean, grain, meat, wool, etc.) of the United Kingdom and in the United States bear to the total value of their manufactures, respectively '/—Yours truly, Neophyte.