The Bruce Herald. " Nemo me impune lacesset." TOKOMAIRIRO, FEBRUARY 21, 1888.

Bruce Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 1934, 21 February 1888, Page 2

The Bruce Herald. " Nemo me impune lacesset." TOKOMAIRIRO, FEBRUARY 21, 1888.

The vexed question of railway freights for agricultural produce has been put in a somewhat new light by the Victorian Minister, Mr Deakin. Ifc should be known that from time to time the fares and freights on the Victorian railways have been so reduced in favor of producers and the public generally ihat they have for a leng while past been the lowest in the colonies. But contemporaneously with this, the price of grain has also fallen so that the advantage gained in one way is neutralised in another. Moreover, Victoria overproduces, and can only get rid of its surplus by export, and the farmers naturally want to get their grain to the shipping port at as low a charge as possible. A deputation of farmers waited upon the Minister the other day. It may be mentioned that they had previously interviewed Mr Speight, the Chairman of Commissioners, and he pointed out that if any reduction were made, the margin of profit now gained bj the railways would be destroyed. Mr Deakln" pointed out that "to carry grain at a loss would simply be taking money out of the pockets of the rest of the people to put it into that of the farmers, and the only consoling advice he could offer was, that if wheat-growing did not pay they should try something else." Mr Deakin's contention is to some extent right. Colonial farmers as a rule are too prone to put all their eggs in one basket. Neither wheatgrowing alone in Victoria or oatgrowing alone in Otago can be expected to remunerate the farmer. But that is neither here nor there. The railways belong to the country, and the country is indebted to the producers for all its wealth. Elaborate objections may be raised to this theory. It may be said that we owe a great deal to foreign capital. True. But were it not for the producers, neither foreign nor local capital would fructify. Manufactures have accomplished much, but they in their turn depend upon the producers. This being the case, it is evident that if any class deserve concessions in the matter of railway freights it is the agriculturists and pastoralists. The colonial farmer is heavily handicapped in many ways. The least thing that ought to be done for him is to enable him to convey his produce to market at something less than a rate which absorbs the bulk of his profits. On most of the American iines the tariff is so arranged as to place the farmer residing at the remotest point as near as possible upon an equality with the farmer near to the seaboard. But then in America the railway lines are managed by companies, which see, what no colonial State department ever will, that to consider the advantage and convenience of their customers is the surest way to advance their own interests. Possibly no country in the world ever before witnessed such a spectacle of idiocy as that now afforded in New Zealand, of a State railway demanding such high rates for the carriage of the people's goods on their own railways, that the people find ifc advantageous to transport them along the ordinary roads, and then of a local governing body imposing a heavy prohibitive toll on the road traffic in order to force it back on the railways. Verily the people in these democratic countries suffer much from the rulers they elect by their own suffrages.

Me H. S. Fish, the member for Dunedin South, has broken the ice and addressed his constituents. He received not only a vote of thanks and confidence, but something a good deal more substantial — a purse of 61 sovereigns, which had been collected in small sums, and traa intended to make up what had been taken from the honorarium. Whatever may be thought of the propriety of such a presentation, it must at all events be admitted that it proves that Mr Fish stands high in the opinion of the electors of South Dunedin. "We scarcely think that it can be looked, upon in the light of payment for services personally rendered to themselves as a constituency, but rather as a tribute to his general conduct and bearing as a member of the

Legislature. . The. sum was not Tery large, but then the idea is a new one, and the electors have not got into the way o£ making their members" any direct pecuniary return for their services. The lowest contribution was half-a-crown, and as there were many sums far in excess of this, it is not likely that the number o£ subscribers reached a couple of hundred. Now we are inclined to think that if members must be paid it would be better if the honorarium were always raised by public subscription among the electors. They would then be paid according to merit. We notice that Mr Pish is not particularly pleased at the reduction. He believes that the interests of democracy will suffer through reducing the pay from 200gs. to 15Ogs. The report does not give Mr Eish's reasons for holding such an opinion. All we can say is that the democratic interest must be very weak indeed if it hinges upon whether its representatives receive 50 guineas a session more or less. There was one other thing brought forward by Mr Fish which is worth noting. He said, "As regards the composition of the Government, it was thought by members on both sides of the House that it was too much of a one-man Administration." The long and the short of it is that Mr Fish is not favorably disposed towards the present Premier, and therefore he objects to Sir Haeey Atkinson exercising such influence over his colleagues and supporters. Were the Premier a man altogether after his own heart — better still, were his name H. S. Fish — the member for Dunedin South would not object to his preponderating influence. But in every well-ordered and successful institution there must be, as there always has been, the one man. It is the lack of that one man, head and shoulders above all his compeers, whether friends or foes, which has reduced the British House of Commons to such a wretched condition as it has been in for years past. It has been the absence of the one man which has militated against the success of representative government in New Zealand for the last few years. Conceding to Sir Kobert Stout all that ability which his best friends claim for him, it must be admitted that he lacked one thing — the ability to lead, to stamp the impress of himself upon the minds of his coadjutors, hence the story of his Premiership is one of failure and disaster from beginning to end. With all due respect to Mr Fish, we regard as a blessing what he looks upon as a calamity. It is not that Sir Harkt ATKnrsotf is the only man in the Cabinet, that he , is the unit and his colleagues ciphers. It is simply that he is what every Premier ought to be, the leader and captain of his followers. That he has defects is only to say that he is human. There may be in the House now men far more suited to the office than Sir Hakry Atkinson, but they are in the background, and as yet are scarcely known to fame.

The proposal of President Cleveland to remit the wool duty is a good illustration of how Protection should work. For a long time past it has been evident that the duty on imported wool was no longer protective. It has not led to over-production — on the contrary, the wool produced in the States is altogether insufficient to supply the demands of manufacturers. The duty is not required to recoup an. exhausted Treasury, for the public exchequer is filled to overflowing, huge chests of coin stored up, for which there is no immediate or prospective use. Happily there is no army or navy worth speaking of, or the balance might be on the other side of the ledger. Of course those who regard Freetrade as a foundation principle of political economy, will quote President Cleveland's action as favorable to their theory. It really proves nothing of the kind. It proves incontestably that under a policy of Protection the woollen manufacturing industry of the States has assumed such proportions that it has outgrown the local supply. Now, to insist upon the manufacturers continuing to pay the duty is not only unfair ; it is no longer Protection, It is simply handicapping them, without benefitting the i wool producers one iota. The time * has now come when in the interest of manufacturers, the tariff originally put on to benefit them must be removed. It has acted as a scaffolding while the edifice was being reared, but the building once completed the scaffolding is only an eyesore and an obstruction. The time may comß when repairs will be needed, then the scaffolding can be re-erected, and the period may arrive when from various causes it may be imperative to renew the protective duties on wool. There will be no principle at stake. The immediate necessity only has to be considered. "Whatever best meets that is the policy of the hour. Years ago it was Protection on wool ; now it is Freetrade. This is exactly how , the tariff question should be worked / among ourselves. For any man to be an all-round Freetrader or Protectionist is to occupy an anomalous position. A close protective tariff on one article is quite consistent with the widest freetrade in another, while the aim should always be to remove protective duties immediately the object for which they were levied is achieved.