PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 149, 24 June 1903, Page 2 (Supplement)

PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —It has been shown that the granting of a preferential tariff, say by England, on our meat and butter would render such commodities dearer to the purchasers both in England and here, and a similar result would, of course, follow the imposition of a preferential tariff on all other commodities imported from our colony. Such a result would be to the injury of the purchasers in both countries. Can anyone say otherwise?

I have now to turn to the great question of labour, by which I mean the energy and skill required from human beings to be applied to the natural resources of a country, in order to give them an exchange value, that is, to convert them into what is termed wealth.

In its many varieties labour is followed by the overwhelming majority of mankind, not because they love it, or for its own sake, but solely because of the wages received in return, which enable them to procure the commodities requisite for the sustenance of life.

Nominally, wages consist of money, but really they consist of the commodities that can be purchased for them. Who would work and accept money wages if he could not obtain the necessary commodities for them? Of course, no one. Hence it is manifest that the value or rate of wages must be determined purely and solely by their purchasing power, and such being the case, whatever increases the purchasing power increases the prosperity of the labouring class —the most numerous and therefore the most important portion of a community; while whatever decreases the purchasing power decreases the prosperity of that important class. Now, whatever increases the supply of commodities clearly increases the purchasing power of money wajjes, and so tends to render the labourer's position more happy.

It has been stated that a preferential tariff should be conceded by us on British goods in the following manner —by placing ten or twenty per cent, higher import duty on foreign than on British goods. Assuming that such a trade policy is enacted, we shall see at once the price of the British goods raised here by ten or twenty per cent. To think otherwise, to say that the price would not be raised at all, but .would remain then just as at present, is to say or think what is contrary not only to the principles of commerce, but to com-mon-sense and experience in addition.

Well, then, how would the labourer be affected by such higher price? Surely it is hardly necessary to point out. He would find the purchasing power of his present rate of money wages decreased or weakened in respect of such commodities to the extent of ten or twenty per cent., to him a very serious injury. Moreover, his not being an importer, or exporter, nor in command of the natural resources of wealth, but merely a purchaser of commodities, his ilase would suffer more injury than any other class of the community from the rendering of commodities scarcer and dearer. The importer, the exporter, the manufacturer, or the land-owner, may derive some advantages from the rendering of commodities scarcer and dearer, that is, from the imposition of a preferential tariff, but the labourer can never derive anything ,but injury.— I am, etc.,

DIOGENES.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Having read the article on preferential tariff in your columns, I beg to dissent from "Diogenes'" reasoning. The general welfare or prosperity of any community depends entirely on profitable markets for such commodities they produce. Carlyle says: "Produce, produce, produce," but what's the use of producing providing you don't get a market—a profitable market—for such productions. How long would labour, capital and land exert itself separately, intensely for no profit or gain? Thus profitable markets, whether local or foreign, of the various productions of any one country stimulate energies and further encourage prosperity and enterprise. Then let all producers, manufacturers, fanners in any one country or community get a profitable return for their goods after paying all the costs of production. When such employers are doing well or prosperous it becomes a matter of natural course that they are putting themselves into a higher position to pay labour higher wages; and I contend that wages have a tendency to rise a certain amount. Accordingly, foster and encourage local industries pa that

a country can supply its own markets, and when that is accomplished further produce and compete in the other markets •of the world. "Diogenes" says there can be no production without land, labour and capital, but he ignores the most vital points—profitable markets. Where would land, labour and capital be without markets? Where would production be without markets? Butter and. meat would no doubt be sold at a higher rate than now, to correspond with the higher price obtained in an export market; but this ruling of higher local rates tends to impress on me that the production of .such a country is only in its infant stages; their industries have not been fully developed, as the local market is affected, by the export prices. Let the high ruling of local markets, combined with the high prices of the world's or export market, continue for a period, and then one will see not only one particular country, but all naturally adapted countries for such products, will be enormously stimulated and eager to supply the various high markets. Then one and all of the thoroughly developed countries would disperse a certain amount of its products on the world's markets and thus keep such markets in a normal and healthy tone. And, again, each individual industry of the different developed countries would retain a certain amount of their produce for the local markets, and naturally there would be a local competition, which tends to keep the local market also in a healthy sphere. —I am, etc., PAPAKURAIST.