NEW ZEALAND HOME INDUSTRIES.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12480, 17 April 1906, Page 9

NEW ZEALAND HOME INDUSTRIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PMESS." Sir, —In reference to the letter on the above subject from the pen of Mr T. J. Mcßricie, as ono interested vi social questions I would put forward a row plain thouglits. In regard to the question of State versus private onteriiritse, the Coverlcy dictum, I think, lolds good: "Much might be said on either side." Wo want to choose the good, and refute the evil, out of either .yatem. In our present system of patornal government all tho worst features of both are concentrated, for the State, instead of helper and encourager, becomes gaoler and inquisitor. To tlie principle of voluntary combination between all partias, State, employer, worker and consumer, very little exception can bo taken by any reasonable mind; but every enlightened thinker must admit that protective tariffs, like militarism, ore a sheer relic of barbarism. Our fri«nd hua practically admitted the evils of protective monopolies, when unchecKed by co-operative distribution, as tshown in America or elsewhere, in his pampldets, which. I have perused with deep study. But I submit that there are ways and means which might dispense with such invidious methods, in tavour of more efficient means of wealthdistribution. Protection rests on tlio fallacy that real wealth is based on the mere possession of currency, or at host the precious metals, whereas it should be patent that true riehus consist of all useful commodities, gold and silver forming only a small part of national property. This economic error has led nations into the pernicious policy of creating artificial dearth for the benefit of vested interests; as after Waterloo, th© heavy Corn Law nearly drove the poorer classes to desperate measures, to avert starvation; and Cobden quoted an instance where a dead cow was dug up to allay the pangs of hunger. It must also be pernicious to divert a nation from natural to artificial enterprises. .As an instance, lately the making of a highly poisonous article to workers' health, was found to bo promoted in this land by a duty, but suppressed by free importation. Restrictive legislation also conduces to the increase < petty crimes, wliich is against all trt*._ liberal policy. To oome to tho point, our friends see no serious evil in a -juch graver matter, our increasing dependence on the outside money-lender. We know that though it is a basis of value, gold is but a small part of national exchange. Here lies the truo key to the problem; we must cense foreign borrowing and establish our own system of national finance. We have a gross and net wealth of two to throe hundred million, a national and local debt of upwards of sixty millions. Now comes our friend's scheme. We are told, that vast stores of gold (and what other wealth P) lie under us for want of necessary capital, our average commercial citi_er» treated as misdemeanants, who engage in wealth-producing industry by our barbarous economy, which makes him forfeit five pounds a day for passive non-resistance to State inquisition. I *«y, then, let all parties unite in a cooperative national hank, to pay off all our debts of borrowed money. Such a system would unite all the benefits of a protective tariff in two ways, by ensuring preference for home-made goods through a national currency, and impelling the importer to receive payment in the same, or in national produce, while removing a grievance from those who from sentimental reasons desire specially imported articles. Every industry, such as ships, mines, factories, and land improvements, could be subsidic-ed, on Mich lines as State-aided schools, the State assuming a conditional partnership, to carry out conditions of hours of workers, public health, and other matters of fecial welfare. With much less invidious methods of procedure such, a scheme should urrito all the best features of both eonservatve and radical policy; the present elimination of conventional party government should afford our friends a chance of success.—Yours, etc., R. H.