FREETRADE V. PROTECTION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2740, 4 February 1890, Page 2

FREETRADE V. PROTECTION.

TO THE KDITOR. Sib,— lu ray last I said I would forward a copy of a petition to Congress and the President of the United States fr mi the farmers of several States, praying for a reduction of the oppressive protection duties. The following is the copy nf the resolutions embodied in the petition :—" Resolved, by the farmers of the States lying between the Mississippi and Missouri river valleys, and of the States of Oregon, Washington and California, in national convention assonv bled : First. That we hereby memorialize our national Congress and the President of the United States, and do most seriously petition them to make eucli reciprocity treaties with those foreign nations to whom we ship our surplus farm products as will cause the foreign nations to remove the customs duties from our farm products shipped abroad, thereby causing us to reCfsive a higher price for our foreign farm surplus, and thereby fixing a higher price upon all that we sell at home. Second. That we ask that such steps be taken by our national Congress as will destroy the present existing monopolies and trusts, and prevent the formation of others. Third. And to the end that we may get our farm implements at a less price, that the present laws be repealed thit place a duty upon farming implements or the raw materials used in their manufacture. Fourth. That we are more deeply interested in the carryin" out of the above resolutions than we are in the success of any political party." In this meeting the Freetraders greatly outnumbered the Protectionists, and the resolutions were carried by an immense majority. This, I think, proves conclusively that if Protection cheapened goods to the consumer, and raised the price of produce to the farmers, that they would not convene a meeting of agriculturists, representing a vast area of the Western States, to petition agaiust it. The manufacturers of the United States have been compelled to look on while their shipping has been reduced to almost nil and England, freetrade England, monopolised the whole, or very nearly the whole of the trade of South America. At the recent Pan-American conference held in New York, an effort was made by the United States representatives tu put matters in train for reciprocity tactics with the Southern Governments. They found by bitter experience, that owing to their system of protection, they could not compete in the markets of the world with the manufactures of freetrade England. They profess to laugh at the little island, call her effete, etc., but she is not effete by any tneans, .she is as vigorous as ever, too much so in the matter of manufactures for America, as for instance in the article of screws. The Hon. Joseph Chamberlain's firm received the modest bribe of five thousand pounds a year from the screw manufacturers of the United States to refrain from shipping any of those very necessary articles to the States. Whom does Protectim benefit in this case? Is it not a very clear case of robbing the public to put money io the pockets of the "patriotic" screw manufactures 1 Look nearer home and see what our protective duties have done for our customs revenue. Instead of a surplus of £200,000 or £270,000, as some predicted there will be a deficiency. People had to buy less, they could not buy so freely as before. Our manufacturers were well able to hold their own before the extra duties wero levied, and I think I am safe in saying that the heavy duties imposed have not conduced to the manufacture of ono extra yard of cloth, in any of our woolen factories. Protection did not help the Onehuuga factory, for notwithstanding high duties that soon died. The wages of English workmen have increased no less than fifty per cent all round during the last fifty yoars, ami they are much better off than they could possibly bo under a system of protection. The wages of skilled workmen engaged in silk manufacture in Ameiica are only equal to what is paid to an unskilled farm labour hers, viz., six shillings a day. Women averaged £1 par week, and children six shillings a week, and although the duty on the manufactured article is 30 per cent., and the r;\\v material is admitted free, the manufacturers employ nearly twice and a-half n.s many women and children as men in this industry, just because their wat'os are lower than the wages of men. Si) much for the manufacturers' patriotism, of which Mr Barwell talks hu readily. If Protection raises the price of produce, why is the price of cotton and wheat regulated by the market rates of those commodities in Free Trade Liverpool and London? It must seem absurd to any thinking person that in the article raw cotton the price in Amui ica should be regulated by the English price, while the price of the manufactured article should range fr>m 42*84 to 72'9b" per cent higher than in England. On spool thread—made of cotton also—the duty is 52*22 per cent., yet in the faca of the fact that, notwith- ' standing the high duties on the imported manufactured articles, the farmers who grow the cotton have to accept Liverpool prices, less cost of freight and other dues. We are told by the advocates of Protection that it is the very thing that farmers require to raise the price of their produce. Can cool effontery go further ? Such is the condition of the American farmer undtr much vaunted Protection, and such will be the condition of the New Zealand farmer if the baneful system is introduced here. Farmers of New Zealand, you are a powerful body if you only unite. Bβ united in this one thing, at any rate, and, at the next election, refuse to vote for the Protection candidate, or in the end you will find dishonest combinations, which are now euphemistically called trusts, putting the money into their pockets that should go into yours.—Yours truly, Freic Trade.