Tariff Protection And The Farmer

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 128, 24 February 1938, Page 13

Tariff Protection And The Farmer

Sir, —In this morning's issue you print a further letter by L “Farmer,” who affirms that he is entitled to an answer to the question as to whether the figures quoted by Sir Alfred Ransom in respect of the farmeg, referred to annual assistance. In the course of this particular discussion we have already said so three times. For the fourth and last time we say “Yes.” (A word which may be described as conveying the meaning “definitely” or ly.”)

If “Farmer’s” argument re land tax is correct, he should be able to assert that a man who has had one of his legs cut off never had two legs. “Farmer” asks' whether the manufacturers agree that the farmer should get compensation when his costs make his production unprofitable. We presume that this refers to the farming industry generally and not to individual cases. As this is the principle which we desire supported for the manufacturing industries, it must be equally applicable to jirimary industry. The manufacturer has never opposed proper assistance to the farmer. Australia has assisted and protected both its primary and its manufacturing industries, and has made a great success of ■both.

In the same issue you publish a letter over the signature “Basic Facts.” This letter is a reasoned statement referring to the question of cost disparity, which plays so important a part in the matter of production generally, whether primarv or manufacturing. “Basic Facts” correctly goes on to say that, having obtained ail we can by means of the sale of primary products, “there is only one way to get more goods—make them ourselves.” This is the basis upon which every leading country in the world has encouraged and expanded its manufacturing industries.— We are, etc., > NEW ZEALAND. MANUFACTURERS’ FEDERATION. Wellington, February 23.