PROTECTION.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17938, 5 December 1923, Page 9

PROTECTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE r£ESS. r Sir, —I quite agree with the concluding part of your leader in Monday's "Press" that it would bo best to omit this subject from any syllabus used in the schools. .It is entirely a debatable subject between Freetraders and Fair traders, and in fairness to both should bo thrashed out by our politicians, and not by schoolmasters., The unexpected general election at Home has brought it into public notice once more, and the voters are bewildered with the catch phrases used and rosy promises made by the Protectionists. To an out-and-out Freetrader such ns myself, I can but smile at their political quackery in trying to gull the voters. Cobden and Bright ate out-of-date, they say, in 1923. ' These two great men proved to be correct in their views, viz., that world value is the true standard in commerce, and not- any petty national value implied by tariffs and octrois in individual national States. Can any Protectionist amongst your readers inform you why, if their policy was bad, England, who has followed it for eighty' years, is still the world's banker, with Lombard street as the centre of the wprld's financial operations? France, we are told, is prosperous, and every Frenchman at work, whilst 1 in 40 are unemployed in Britain. I query all this; but for tile moment accept it as true, and would be pleased for the Protectionist reader to inform you why England has redeemed 500 millions sterling of her debt since the war, against France's nil ? Per capital, Holland (virtually a Frectrade State) is much richer than France to-day, or Germany ten years back. Why so, Mr Protectionist? — Yours, etc., W. H. SAXBY. Christchurch, December 3rd.

TO THE EDITOB OP "THE. rBESS." Sir,—Your Leading Article on teaching of Economics on the 3rd inst., arising from a portion of Mr Jenkin's address at the Annual Meeting of the Industrial Association, lias side-stepped that portion of Mr Bottrill's misstatements in his school text book under the title of "Civics." The attack by Mr Jemcin's, and his use of the words "misleading rubbish" and "distorted and prejudiced," were quite justified. You mentioned that "he (Mi* Jenkin) did not point to any mis-stute-ment of fact in it, or to error in the deduction from the facts*," which shows that either you have read superficially, or have purposely ignored the tissue of perversions published in Mr Bottrill's "Civics." On page 91 of that book is a dastardly attack upon the brushniaking industry of' this country, his arguments are worse than misleading, as his foundation is built on figures that are not correct. Of several inaccuracies I will for the present only deal with one where Mr Bottrill states—"we still import by far the greater quantity of the brushes wo use" —now, there is no mistake about that statement, which is falsified by an extract from the New Zealand Year Book page 392, 1921-22, which are the figures to correspond with the same year in which Civics was printed. Why, the exact opposite is the case. The New Zealand manufactures of brushware actually exceed imports Dy approximately close on 32 per cent., in spite of the fact that Tooth Brushes, and Celluloid and-Ivory goods are not at present made in this country, and it is only now that the Dominion's Manufacturers attention is being given to the manufacture of Toilet brushware. Artist's brushes are duty tree, they are not made in this country. It is quite a safe assumption that New Zealand Manufacturers are supplying fully three quarters of the Dominion requirements of the lines that they manufacture. One gathers that Mr Bottrill's impressions are, that all manufacturers are descendants of Ananias, and that Mr Bottrill's mission in life is to teach our children that their welfare lies in promoting imports, coupled with more intensive primary production. In castigating manufacturers for daring to ask for protection Mi Bottrill has conveniently forgotten the fact that Mr Massey said during the tariff debate of 1921, that his tariff was for revenue —not protection. I want to emphasise Mr Massey's statement, that he was out for revenue, and that the limited protection . we have was a matter of necessity—not, choice. Theorists of the type of Mr Bottrill never seem to learn by experience. We have only to go back to the Great War to realise what would have happened had there been no manufacturers in this country. Round about 100,000 of our sons were splendidly equipped at lesser rates than if we had to import, Britain had more than her hands full, and the only other alternative would

have been supplies from America or Japan. It is pleasing to note that you Mr Editor consider that propaganda in schools as objected to by Mr Jc'nkin is justified. I further consider that o!!r children should bo taught truth, and to eliminate such detestable doctrines as those enunciated by Mr Bottrill. Politics are out of place in schools. The manufacturers of this country should not ho exposed to mislending statements under the guise of economics.—Yours, etc.. I. WOOLF.