7

1.—5

103. You think that the importation will still remain, even with 20 per cent.?—No; I do not say so. I said that if less than 20 per cent, is put on it would not give the stimulus. 104. Your idea of the duty to he put on is to make it prohibitory to importation?— The 20 per cent, would give such a stimulus to trade that there would be no need to import. 105. If the competition produced by the stimulus would have the effect of reducing prices nearly to what they are at present there would still be a loss : the 20 per cent, would not be a gain. Who would be the loser; would the loss fall partly on the manufacturer, or the wages of the workmen, or on the public ?—The competition would cause the employment of more labour ; there would be a larger production, and consequently there would be more labour employed ; the profits would come out of the increased work done. 106. But, if the profit of the manufacturer is reduced by this competition, he would have to content himself, would he not, with less ?—I do not quite understand you. 107. If 20-per-cent. duty were put on he would have 20 per cent, more than at present in the way of profit. But you say that in the course of events competition will bring down prices, so that the consumer will not have to pay much more than at present; the profit would largely decrease ?— No ; instead of one hundred men two hundred would be employed; the wages would not be greater, and the profits would come from the increased trade. 108. You mean that the larger the work the manager would be able to content himself with less profit, and that the profit he would ultimately get would not be too large?— Yes. Mr. B. W. Mills in attendance and examined. 109. The Chairman.] We are desirous to hear your evidence upon the subject of this inquiry, Would you, in the first place, like to make a general statement ?—I would say, as a preface to any remarks that I may make, that I have already devoted two nights and a day to the tariff questions (on a committee of the Chamber of Commerce), and this circumstance has rather encroached upon the time that I could devote to this particular subject of industries and manufactures. But, speaking of the iron industry, specially in regard to its connection with engineering, boiler-making, and blacksmiths' work, I have an intimate acquaintance with these branches of it by reason of my connection with the Lion Foundry in this city for nearly a quarter of a century. I am of opinion that the iron industry is pretty well protected at present. Ido not think that those engaged in it really lay claim to much protection. I think that, with the tools and machines used in it coming in free, and the raw materials such as sheet-iron, copper, and other metals used being still free, there is no demand for any large measure of protection. But lam not quite clear as to one or two important items. I refer to bolts, nuts, and rivets, which, while they are free and not to be disturbed by the new tariff, yet the new tariff says that wrought-iron in any stage of manufacture shall pay 20 per cent, ad valorem. Of course, bridge-work consists of bolts to a great extent. There appears to me to be an anomaly here which ought to be settled. I may state to the Committee that I have at present no connection whatever with any engineering establishment or foundry. 110. Mr. Joaes.} Do I understand you that these articles you have just mentioned are dutiable? ■ —It is stated that wrought-iron in whatever stage of manufacture shall pay duty. I pointed this out to a gentleman connected with the iron trade, and there appeared to be some doubt about it. My impression is that all carriage-bolts, engineers' bolts, and nuts and rivets should be admitted free. 111. Mr. Garrich.] Why should small nuts be admitted free ? —Because they are to be employed in the industry itself ; bolts and nuts for bridge-work are totally different from carriage bolts and nuts. These would be imported here whether the duty was on them or not, because they are necessary for work to be done : they are made in great quantity principally by machinery; the cost of making them here would be excessive. 112. Do I understand you that they cannot be made perfectly in the colony ?—The large ones can but not the small ones. The labour necessary would be very great. If 20-per-cent. duty were imposed they would still be imported. Many of them are not even charged by the cwt., but by the gross. 113. The Chairman.] As you read the present tariff these small bolts are liable to duty ?—I put the question at the Customs yesterday morning and was told they were free. 114. But you cannot understand how, when it is stated that iron-work for bridges shall be free, and yet that wrought-iron in any stage of manufacture should have to pay 20 per cent, how wrought-iron rivets are included ? —I think they should be free; perhaps they are free; but what I say more particularly is that the doubt should be settled. 115. Mr. Jones.] Do you think it probable that any manufacture of bolts, nuts, and rivets might be started in New Zealand?—l do not see why it should not. 116. Would it be expensive? —I do not think that it would be; but Ido not think" it would give much employment to labour. It is wholly done by machinery. 117. Which would be wholly employed in that work ?—Exactly so. 118. Could one such factory supply all New Zealand?—lt could do so if got up to sufficient extent. 119. Mr. Bruce.] It appears to me that you are in favour of admitting small bolts free, and I understand you to say that you would be in favour of protecting the larger ones ?—Yes; I think in respect to the larger ones there is a fair amount of labour expended on them in proportion to their value. 120. But is it not a question of degree only : would not the larger nuts come in more cheaply ? 121. Mr. Jones.] It is not a question of size, is it? —My contention is that all engineers' bolts and nuts, carriage-bolts, and nuts and rivets should bo admitted free. 122. Would that cover all agricultural implements ?—Yes; it would include the bolts and nuts in their manufacture.