The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News,Morning News and Echo. THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1885.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 131, 11 June 1885, Page 2

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News,Morning News and Echo.

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1885.

Ia Ok* urn* that laclti Militanoa, For tht WTOBf Oat nwli nslitanot, For tht faturt Is tha <i»tano«, Aad tha food tlut wa in io.

The Hon. Mr Ballance's lettet on " Protection" has brought a hornet's nest about that gentleman's ears. Among the members of the Cabinet, tha Minister for Lands and Defence has been specially unfortunate in provoking hostile criticism; his Protectionist proclivities have furnished to Southern critics the motive for attack which was afforded by his Native policy in the North. The "Otago Daily Times," alluding to his letter to the Wairau Liberal League, says :— " In the letter in question Mr Ballance enters the domain of political economy, and, as an economist, his claims, we suspect, are of the most slender kind. Usually diffuse and somewhat prolix when he commits himself to paper, he has on this occasion contrived to cram more fallacies into a small compass than ever we have seen done by a New Zealand Minister before." Our Dunedin contemporary then mentions the known Protectionist opinions of Sir Julius Vogel and Mr Stout, and it warns supporters of the Government against allowing their " party loyalty to commit them to the adoption of principles which are as plausible as thoy are dangerous to tht real welfare and progress of a nation." Other journals speak in much the same strain. Mr Macandrew, ia addressing his constituents, made mention of the great preponderance of the agricultural over the manufacturing industries in the colony. He said : —

We should bear io mind that although there are in New Zealand sources of enormous wealth other than agriculture, yet that tha futuro prosperity of the colony depends upon this. It is a remarkable fact that six-tenths of the whole population of New Zealand is agricultural, according to the last censns returns in 1884. The figures ore as follow; the total population was 540,877, classed as follows:—Agricultural, 323,938; manufacturing, 11,446; other occupations, 150,827; not enumerated, 54,666;—t0ta1, 540,877. Under the head manufacturing are included woollen, bootmakers, tailors, ropeworks, soap and candle workß, leather, paper, coachbuilding, saddlory, furniture, tanners, implement makers, hats, biscuits, ironf ounders, fellmongers, wool scourers, rope and twine makers. §0 that you see there'are 30 times as many peoplo returned under the occupation of agriculture as there are under all the other manufacturing industries jput together, These are figures which might afford interesting pabulum in discussing tbe question of Protection and Free Trade.

The evidence which these figures afford, that only 11,446 persons out of a population of 5401887 are engaged in manufactures, is unquestionably a powerful argument for the Free Trader. It must be frankly admitted that in a country like New Zealand, which is more than self-support-ing in every description of agricultural produce, the farmer can gain nothing except a better local market from Protection, and if the agricultural interests represent nearly two-thirds of the entire community, they would be taxed by Protective duties to build up industries which, may only be abje to stand by compelling the whole community to pay continuously a

higher price for commodities they require than would he charged under a system of Free Trade. We think this question should bo looked at fairly, without any attempt on either side to conceal or disguise the real issue. If a manufacture employing 100 persons, which cannot live without the support of a high protective duty, is brought into existence and sustained by ft heavy tax upon foreign imports, it means that the whole population of the country will pay a higher price for that articlo than they I need pay, and that they suffer loss to that extent in order to support those ioo people. This proposition is as plain and undeniable as that 2 and 2 make 4. And herein lies tlie danger of extreme Protection. No tariff should be so prohibitory as to create industries that are not natural to the soil. For example, it would be worse than folly in this colony to tax all cotton goods heavily enough to set cotton mills going, Tlie country would be impoverished, and the people robbed of comforts in a measure beyond all chance of compensation before these mills could stand alone. On the other hand, it appears a monstrous anomaly that we should pay shipping charges, brokerage, and commissions on our wool to London, manufacturers' and wholesale dealers' profit and freight back to the colony on the manufactured goods, whon a little assistance from the State will enable an industry advantageous to producer and consumer to overcome the troubles of infancy. There is not so much difficulty in discriminating in this matter as out-and-out Free Traders assert. A tariff of id% per cent, has built up several thriving woollen mills, and supplied the community with a splendid cloth nt very little above the prices at which English cloth could be imported subject to a low rate of duty; but a duty of 50 per cent, would not establish half-a-dozen cotton mills.

Mr Macandrcw suggests 10 per cent, as the larger amount which the colonists should be willing to pay for a locally-manufactured article as compared with one imported Irom abroad. We doubt whether 10 per cent, represents the difference which persons who desire to maintain a good standard of comfort for the working population in New Zealand would consider a fair margin between the English price and the colonial. But Mr Macandrew's suggestion goes upon the lines that should be observed in establishing any system of Protection in this colony. We believe the present tariff is heavy enough, and that any further relief and assistance to industry now must come from remission and relaxations on ' articles required in manufacture rather than from more extravagant duties.

The main arguments for a moderate tariff aid may be summed up in three propositions—i. Every community, to become great, must have variety of employment; in this respect the preponderance of the agricultural industry in New Zealand is a source of weakness, 2. There are natural products and resources which can only be developed by protecting them for a time from excessive competition. 3. It is not for the good of the people of this colony that labour should be depressed tothelowlevelcurrentin Europe, and unrestricted free trade tends, with the irresistible force of the law of gravitation, to that result. The question of using these duties for revenue purposes, which is only n secondary argument, but still an important one, need not bo discussed. An exorbitant tariff under the pretence of Protection would, however, do the masses of the population an incalculable injury and wrong—first of all by impoverishing them now, and making living dear; and secondly by creating unhealthy special interests, which would continue an incubus upon the country, making new demands at the expense of the whole community for their sustenance, and impossible to throw off without industrial disorganisation and individual injustice.