THE FREE-TRADE SIDE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2734, 21 January 1890, Page 3

THE FREE-TRADE SIDE.

ro tub urnrmt. Sir, —Mr Barwoll in youi nsue of 14th iust., is very weak in his reply to my statement thnt wool could not be so much higher in America than in England, or the value of sheep would be higher. I feur he was a little out of his depth in mixing up liidos, bones, and mutton. Surely he does not mean to imply that the price of wool does not raise the price of sheep. Ho must surely remember—-if he is a colonist oi 15 or 20 years standing—the drop in value of sheep owing to tho fall in the price of wool, nnd the corresponding rise when wool went up Hguin. If the price of wool does not influencu the value of sheep, why then do eheep breeders give such high prices for ram;! us they often do ? It is not because of thdtp suitability for propogatinp , good " mutton "sheep, Lincolus are not suitable for uvijttiHi, and yot some of this breed bring"iß»bulous prices. Supposing the American sheep to clip an average of 51bs. each, i> low one, but it will do for oxainple, and the wool to be double the English price, which ranges from 10d. to Is for greasy, an average of say lid, the American wool would be worth Is 10d per pound, the value, therefore, of the clip would be be an average of ©3 2d per head, even allowing the average clip to be only dibs., there would be a value of 7s 4d per head for wool alone. This contention of Mr Barwoll's is as illogical ss his statement that goodsare cheapened and wages rained by Protection. The reason I dirt not give the price of wool when I quoted the price of sheep, was because I lent the papers with the market quotations. I give the latest nvtntntinns from St. Louis, Missouri: — Unwashed, five qualities quoted, which, for the sake of regularity, I shall give as Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the prices being 24 to 24A cents, 21 tvi 22 cents, 19 to 22 cents, 10 to 19 cents, and 16 to 18 cents, respectively ; choice ''tub washed," 35 cents ; inferior ditto, 30 to 33 cents. In Philadelphia, during the month of June, "tub washed" wool ranged from 27 cents for coarse to 40 cents to finest quality ; unwashed from 13 to 22 cents, will Mr Barwell affirm that this is double the price ruling in England? He has nut refuted one of my statements. I contended that Protection has not benefitted the farmer or labourer in the slightest degree, but that, on the contrary, it was inimical to thairinfcerests, and retarded their prosperity. The duty on wool entering tho ports of the United States varies from 2A to 12 cents per lb., according to quality. Now, with what Protectionists tell us is a bonus of 0J per pound for best quality wool, why is not the price of best quality washed not higher than Is Bii per pound? Deducting the duty, or bonus, as it is called by price stands at Is 2d per pound, so that free Trade England shows, after all, better prices than America, with her muchvaunted policy of Protection can A tweed suit that can be bought in New Zealand for less than £4 costs 40 dollars, or £8 6a 8d of our money. Englishmen going to New York are surprised at having to pay £10 for a suit they pay £4 or less for in England. With the very best quality of wool at Is Bd, and wages a dollar and a dollar and a-quarter,a day, what becomes of tho difference between the cost of wool, tho expense of weaving it into cloth, and the cost of the manufactured article in the shape of a suit? It eertdnly does not go into the pockets of either the farmer or operative. If Protection, as Mr Barwell says, cheapens production, will he explain the reason of the great cost of clothing as compared with the price of the raw material and labour? Now as regards Mr Barbell's statement that a certain amount of taxation is required and that it must be raised through the customs'. He fays tea, sugar, etc. should be admitted free, and the goods which could lie made here heavily taxed, ho as to enable the manufacturers to supply all our demands. Now granting that the result of such a policy would be as he says, viz, tlie .supply of all such goods by local manufacturer!), the revenue would soon fall off owing te dutiable goods being made in the colony and only non dutiablo goods impnrted. This rlooa not affect tho question nt issue, and I only refer to it to show Mr Barwell the want of lostic in his argument. He asks whether, .since heavy taxation is absolutely necessary is it wise to let it operate in a way that in the future will prove of incalcuable benefit to us, oris it wise to levy it in such a manner that it can never be anything but n pure imitigatod curse ? Of cuuwe all men will say the latter course wuuld be the more disastrous to the country. Free Traders will say by levying protective duties the curse will bo imposed. Protectionists' will say any othur form of duty would be a curse, nnd so opinions are divided. Without entering into the question as to whether heavy taxation ia absolutely necessary, —a question by the way that is almost unaminously answered in the negative— if it wore levied in the direction suggested it would, if it had the result claimed by for it by Mr Barwell, soon dwindle down so that there would be no revenue worth speaking of. I believe all thinking men admit that though the customs, is the fairest way of mining rovenue, as everyone pays a fair tax upon what ho cansumo*, that is, of CDUf.se, always providing the tax is not an unjust nud oppressive Protectionist one. Ah Anieiiea grows barely halt tho wool required for her u*o I must confess that Ido not see the logic of imposing a tax of from l}ii to Gd a pound on all imported wool. I have shown by ray figures that it does nor bring as high a price as Mr Barwell claims it does, and to me it appears the height ot folly, even supposing it did benefit the growers, to tax the large majority for the sake of bonefitting the very small minority. B',it we know that as a matter of fact it does not benefit the latter, at any rate the wool-growing portion of it. That'it does benefit; the very small minority indeed, in the parsons of the manufacturers, is quite true. These trust.s and combines which are so roundly denounced are the direct outcome of Protection. I will give an example of thoso patriotic men whom Mr Barwell admires. The manufacturers of baling succeeded, in the interests of local industry (?) in getting a heavy duty levied on manufactured baling and jute butts admitted free ; the result was that baling went up so enormously in price that cotton-growers in self-defence tried the manufacture of baling made of cotton, this they successfully accomplished. What was the result? The patriotic!?) manufacturer entered into a league with the Liverpool men and got the latter to refuse all cutton shipped in cotton instead of jute baling. This unselfish proceeding on the part of the patriotic baling manufac turers nearly ruined the smaller cotton raisers ; the latter, however, are now combining to resist the dishonest and unprincipled clique who tried to rob them. "If a man kills another he is a murderer, if he kills a million he is a hero." In like manner if a man steals a loaf of bread he is a villain of the deepest dye, but if he cheat 3 a whole community in a manner jus>t indicated, he is a clever financier. Last year the cost of binder twine went up from 12 to 18 cents a pound, owing to the formation of a trust, which cornered tho market for the raw material, the heavy protection duty on the manufactured twine prevented the unhappy farmers from sending abroad for their supplies, and so they were robbed by the patriots who manufactured it. Mr Barwell has not given a single authoritative statement in support of his contention that Protection is better than Freetrade, consequently, his vague generalities fail to impress anyone in favour of hia policy. See what Protection has done for Victoria, "imports, £24,000,000, exports,

£10,000,000, a powerful argument truly in support of that policy. What benefit has America derived from the enormous and constantly increasing surplus in the Treasury ? wbich is of coursa the result of high protective duties. Has it not done an immense amount of harm by diverting money from the legitimate channels of trade and commerce? for the cash in the treasury must be in the form of bullion, and there it must,enforce, lie idle. As many of the Oarffcrnraont bonds as could be legally purchased, and at a premium, were bought, stilt the surplus 13 increasing. At their wits' end to know what to do with it, the Government suggest building harbour defences, a very necesaary work some will say, but the editor of the "|Detroit Free Press" put it differently recently, by saying it would cost 500,000,000 dollars to fortify, but it would not cest 5 cents to mind their own business, and bo do away with the necessity to fortify. There is no connection really between fortifications and Freelrade, but Protectionists would point to the fort?, and say that their policy not only helped industries, but supplied the money to fortify against a foreign enemy. This letter is already too long for one issue, in another I eball give a copy of a petition from the farninrH of many Western States against Protection.—! nrir, *i>) et c 'i _ S RBETEAUBB.