The Press. MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1888.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 6962, 16 January 1888, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1888.

TV _ hope it is not true, as alleged by the Wellington correspondent of the Hew Zealand Herald, that the Government have refused to admit cement free of duty for local public works, expressly with a view to compelling the Wellington municipality aud the Harbor Board to buy from, certain manufacturers within the colony, of whom it

appears there are two. The precise statement is that the Mayor of Wellington applied to the Government to admit cc meat free of duty, on the ground of the public nature of the contemplated works; that the Premier and the Minister of Public Works drew the Mayor's attention to the fact that cement is manufactured by a Mr. Wilson at Mahuraugi and by Messieurs Macdonald "down South;" but that the Mayor replied that cement of a particular class (presumably not obtainable in the colony) would be required. " The Government, after due '• deliberation, have resolved not to ,! admit any cement duty free, first on " the ground that the local productions " have been certified to as being of " prime quality, and suitable for such " works as are contemplated ; second, " that any relaxation in favour of the " imported article would be ah injury "to the local producers; third, that " the necessity for any such relaxation -- has not been shown."

These are the facta aa published by the New Zealand Herald on the authority of its Wellington correspondent. We say we hope there is no truth in them. We do not wish for a moment to contend that dutiable materials required for local public works ought to be admitted free. We do not know what the practice has hitherto been with regard to that, but on the face of it there seems to be no reason why the general body of taxpayers should relieve the local bodies of this part of the cost of the public works they are engaged in executing. The charge for the main cost of the works is locally borne, and why should not the charge for the duty on materials be locally borne also ? It is true that, taking all the local public works throughout the colony together, it comes pretty much to six of oue and half-a-dozen of the other whether the local bodies ai~ required to pay duty on materials or not. Still, if the Government refuse to remit the duty on cement for reclamation or harbour works or kerbstones or whatnot at Wellington, on account of the loss of revenue which the colony would suffer by the remission, and if they adhere to the same determination with respect to all public works, we should say they are perfectly right. That, however, is a totally different thing from refusing to remit the duty in order to create a monopoly in cement within the colony, —in order, that is to say, to put money into the pockets of Mr. Willis, or Messieurs Macdonald. Who are these persons, that th - ? citizens of Wellington, or the public generally, should be coerced into buying cement from them, whether it is of the kind required or not, at their own price? Surely this would be carryiug the principle of protection in the most mischievous form to an extraordinary length. It would also be in the last degree impolitic from the party point of view. _Ji-eady, we observe, this alleged action on the part of the Government has been thrown into prominence as a proof of their determination to "encourage local industries" by means of protective duties on articles which can be manufactured in the colony. We cannot believe that

the Government have come to such a determination.

So much for the general question. We are bound to say, however, that if the protection campaign is to be begun, ,we could not wish for it to open on a more favourable ground for the freetraders than that afforded by the duty on cement. This is essentially an article which ought to be admitted duty free. After coal and iron, perhaps, there is no commodity which enters more largely into the economy of industries than cement. No public works of magnitude—which are solely directed towards the promotion of industries of all kinds—can be executed without cement, unless in a very difficult, costly, and ineffective way. In a host of private enterprises too, from the largest to the smallest, cement forms an important factor and a considerable item, often the largest item, of expense. From its haiidiness, its cleanliness, its durability, and, above all, its cheapness, it is coming into more and more common use every day. So much is this the case that it may properly be called a necessary in a civilised and progressive country, It is no longer merely an adhesive substance for fastening bricks or stones together. Either by itself or used iv concrete, it is tbe universal substitute for bricks and stone, under all circumstances where it can be advantageously employed. The Government, that is the people in the national sense, are the largest consumers of it; then the local bodies, that is the people in the municipal sense ; and then the builders and manufacturers, that is, the people in the industrial sense. What an absurdity it is, then, to place a tax -upon this medium of general utility, this obedient and unfailing slave, this everybody's friend. But especially, and above all, what a preposterous fallacy it-is to tax it, "in order to encourage local industries."

"But," it may be said, "if cement can be made in the colony, these arguments come to nothing, because the locally-made cement will answer all the purposes of public works and private enterprises, just as well as that made in England or elsewhere." Certainly, we reply, if cement can be made in the colony, fidfilling all the conditions which are fulfilled by trie imported article, then there is not the slightest reason why a single barrel of cement should ever be imported again. But, in that case, where is the necessity for a duty on cement, "in order to encourage local industries V Is it to be believed for a momeut that the consumers of cement would send for it to England, just to spite the local manufacturers, if they could get as good, and as cheap, and as regular a supply of it on the spot \ The truth is, the chief consumers of cement are most anxious to see a local supply spring up and for years past they have gone to both trouble and expense to bring it into existence. But there is no supply as yet, and it is very doubtful if there ever will be. There are very few countries in the world where cement of the best quality—and that is the only kind of cement we are discussing in this article —is made or can be made; and as far as is known at present, New Zealand is not one of them. Mortar can be made almost, anywhere, and useful cement for ore—nary build-

j ing purposc-s is produced in various] parts of New Zealand, but no substi- \ tute for Portland cement has ever j been produced here, nor is there any, prospect ot* auy being produced. It is! said as against this that the Malm-, rangi cement aild also the cement | manufactured "down South," arej equal in all respects to Portland, j and that this is proved by t l '© tests which are everywhere accepted; by scientific and commercial authori-' ties. Let us see what these tests j really amount to. They amount to nothing more than this. The local j manufacturers have submitted small j quantities of their production, spe- I cially prepared for testing purposes, I and these hxve been found to bear as' great a breaking strain as Portland I cement and also to harden under i water as quickly and as well as Port- { laud cement. That 13 about all. We , do not say that these results are not j encouraging. We sincerely hope they signify that the materials of cemeut j equal to Portlaud are to be got iv tho colony, aud that in course of time the perfect article will be produced here. But we deny most emphatically that these so-called tests prove that the colony is or ever will be independent of the import of cement. In the first place, it is not eveu pretended that the locally manufactured cement can be supplied at anything like so low a price aa Portland cement. But that is not all. It is also found that the local manufacturers are quite uuable to supply, at any price, a considerable quantity, extending over long periods, of cement uniformly equal to tha teat samples. Yet uniformity of superlative quality is an absolutely essential condition of success, or even of safety, in most large works where cement is chiefly used. One inferior lot of cement, or even a single barrel of bad cement, might endangor the whole work. Great quantities even of Portland cement are rejected for this reason * and no engineer or contractor would dare to depend on any cement manufac- i tured in New Zealand as it came to hand. As the strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest link, so the test of all the cement to be U3ed in any work is the test of the worst barrel in it. If any New Zealand manufacturer can supply an order for, saj-, 1000 barrels of cement, all equal to the best Portland, on the same terms on whioh Portland is supplied, then we have not another word to say on the subject. Yes, we have just one word more to say, though we have said it before. It is that in that case the local manufacturer's fortune is made, without any ■• encouragement" by means of Customs duty.