LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 643, 21 October 1909, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

OUR PREFERENTIAL TARIFF. Sir,—On Monday'lost' you published a letter : from Mr. John Duthio dealing with the preferential tariff and its effect on our import- . trade. ■ i■. • . ~: > ' ■> : - ...Bj;. statistics he quotes-Mr. Duthie seeks to justify the opinion he holds that the preferential tariff mil not effect its object. The subject i$ of so much .importance that I venture to write a.' few linos' in the hope that Mr. Duthie, or some other student of the subject, will givo'the public tho benefit'of his research. ' lls it safe to conclude, from a consideration of the increase in the proportion of goods subject to. "preferential duty; as compared with the "general,"'that therefore the tariff had not served'its purpose. ■ The "general" goods imported have increased, according. to • Mr. ' Duthie's table, nearly £4,000,000, whilst tho "preferential" goods have increased a little'over .£400,000, ana it would be interesting to know' how' theso increases would compare'with five years prior to the introduction of the preferential tariff. I-am sorry time will not permit my working this out. Perhaps someone with more leisure "prill. It is, however, possiblo to draw eomo conclusions from-an examination of the items subject to the tariff. This I have done for the years 1904 and 1908, and. find that apparently the preferential tariff has had no good effect in respect of the import of firearms, basketware, clocks, ohina and porcelain, earthenware, fish (potted), glassware, pianos, lamps,' etc.,' paper (wrapping and hanging), fancy goods, nails, hardware; that it is difficult to'6ee what effect the' preferential tariff has had on the import of cordage, iron and steel, glass (plate), oement. That the preferential tariff lias apparently 6errcd its purpose to some extent in respect of bicycles, boots and shoes, candles, iron (sheet and'plates), iron (bar 1 and bolt), iron (pipes and fittings), engines (gas and oil), paper (printing), plate and plated ware, instruments (surgical and- dental). It would need more time than I; have at present to solve the question as to whether the balance, was in favour of the preferential tariff having achieved its object or not. . . . I had made some comparison between tno years "1904-1907, and found, with respect to goods subject' to preferential duty, that the tariff 'had good effect as follows:— Goods imported Similar goods not subject to pre- ■ Subjecttopreferential duty. ferentialdnty. Tear .... 1904.'. 1907. : - 1904: MWfc. Total',-...- £776,928.-954,017,. 138,545 ■■ 103,960 And'had no good; offset on ' Goods imported, , Similargoodfl not subject.' * subject to prei ferentialdnty. Year .... : 1904. 1907. ■ 1804. ' 1907/ Total ... £469,410 465,592' . 261,465 - 391,407 And that it was not easy to come to: a conclusion as to - . Goodsnot ■ Similar, goods subject- subject to pre--1 fercntial duty. Year .... 1904. 1907. 1904. 1907. Total ... '^758,377 1,199,056 87,857 144,788 I conclude,, therefore, that in-some cases the tariff has- effected, its object, in others not.—l am. etc., . '.: ,- ALLEN... October. 21. ' MIRAMAR'TRAMWAYS. Sir,—l was glad to : notice that in . a letter appearing in your issue ' .of yesterday's , date Mr.'A. E. Mabin admits the. correctness of my figures regarding Miramar tramways loss, viz., <£2725, ho, however, ?dds ! to -my figures thesum of £300 for track lighting, which' he asserts is' wrongly paid , out of- general - account, and should'be charged to tramways. It is quite' necessary 'to light, for" -instance, the Karaka Bay Boad, and charge general account with the .cost, but the' residents on:the -tramway routes are to be denied'.any street, lights unless the tramways can pay for. them. But Mr. Mabin will tell one there are fewresidents on the tram route at Miramar South, quite so, but, if. one is to argue this question'oiit fully oiie must take into account the fact that the .whole of the cost 'of 'the " Seatoun, Eoad and' tram tunnel is'charged :to tramways, which ; much'more than counterbalances any uri-' fairness in charging half the track-lighting tn general account. ■ Tho £300 is properly oharged to general 'account, especially as-it is only lhalf - the. total cost, the- city finding the other half out of 'running charges. r ' The question of depreciation is purely a matter of opinion. I havo already . given publicity to .my . views thereon. • . v-. vMr.« Mabin i tollsV-ii9* that Mr.-H. D.? Craw*, ford gave the council' four acres of , a sanddrift, on account of tramways, which . was an old' night-soil depot, and that tho council could not sell the land, so they boughtitfrom themselves:' Firstly, tho'.land "w4s hot • a sand--drift; secondly, it is not now. nor never was. a night-soil depot—the council has'made it & sanitary depot—a ; very different thing; and, thirdly, the council . never tried to sell .it, because they were in: urgent need of a sarutary depot (to save expensive, cartage to. a' distant . city - depot, if for no other reason), and after an exhaustive inquiry they came; to tho conclusion that this four acre 6. was the one and only area snitable for the present and (under ■ changed- circumstances) ■' for ; future requirei ments. It seems that what the'.counoil really ought to'have done would'have been to have sold the' land■ account ' tramways -to- 'some, member of tho public, and then to ■ have bought , it baok again at a bigger price, count sanitation. Further, it seems .this 6amtation charge should, go against,,tramway&-a beautiful piece of ..suggested ,finance, .indeed. Questions, of Miraniar tramways policy have been frequently before the public, and were fully considered by the electors in April last. I am inclined to think, therefore,' that few would think that I was correctly reported ' Jwhenv I -was reported "as having' said at the last council'meeting that ''No'one had proposed any different .(tramway) policy.to the present one/' . Renorfcors- very considerable difficulties in this case, condensation of my. remarks, led to a r wrong • meaning being given—a rare, occurrence. of, ray remarks, was that, there,, could no ..'great change 'from',' the present policy, until,a better policy, 'was discovered. The present policy. has been con.tinue<l after the fullest inquiry;, and consultation with > the city tram.ways authorities , extending over the last two years, v The* decisions came to being made on broad', not narrow, lines; "in-fact;' the council 'in the past has'considered that; a wholesale •cutting down- of the tramways-service, as ad. vacated -by Mr. Mabin, would result in stagna*. tion'to the district; and as .one.must in the caw "of'a reduced. service 'look' for a higher proportionate charge v> for running, .the actual reduction of expenses would in no wa £. com* pensate for the loss made to the district generally.- , . ' . . The "oast of public conveniences,. I note in Mrv: MabinV opinion, should be charged #to tramways," hlso for tracks and fences which Tiave been:made in--connection ? with treeplanting. "Therefore, /items, of borough, expenditure for sanitation,'street lighting, public conveniences, tree-planting, and many extra expenses which the borough was put to because of the trams," an entirely imaginary item,' are all to bo charged -to tramways account. 'Is there else? . " ' . : In accordance with resolutions passed a ; few weeks ago the' question : of' tramways policy is •now under review by .the council, the oouncils deliberations, 'however; 'are not-aikely, to bo helped by misstatements of fact appearing in ■ the public press, or by .'crude suggestions for borough . finance.—l am; etc., | ' October. 20, 1909. C. J.'CRAWPORD..