THE NEW PROTECTIVE DUTIES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING POST.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 71, 22 September 1881, Page 3

THE NEW PROTECTIVE DUTIES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING POST.

S-ir — A correspondent in your last night's issue, signing himself "S.C," says "that protection hag proved mischievous in every country wherever it has been tried." '1 his is a somewhat startling statement to make, and one which shows th« writer in question can have but little knowledge of the subject lie writes about. lam not, for one momont, upholding tho Government for lately imposing, by the passing of an Act at the fag end of a session, additional burdens on the people ; it is only in keeping with their vacillating and truculent "policy" during the whole course of their unfortunate career. Political economists admit there i 3 much to be said in favour of both Free Trade and Protection. I will ask your correspondent "S.C ," this question : If Protection is Buch a fearful thing, how comeß it to pass that America is in Buch a flourishing condition at the present time, and has been for a number of years ? How is it that such vast multitudes—about 6000 weekly— are flocking to that Republic from all parts of the civilized globe, and have been flocking there for a number of years past, notwithstanding her enormous prohibitive tariff? Ihe English and German Governments are aware of this, and are using every means in their power to avert the depopulation of their respectivecountries. France and Belgium are in a prosperous state, and they have both heavy prohibitive tariffs. Great Britain at the present time iB groaning under her Free Trade policy. Many of the manufactories are only working half-time, and a great many are Bhut up ; and this state of things is directly attributable to keen foreign competition. Ihe immense quantities of breadstuffs alone that are daily arriving in Great Britain are enormous, and are yearly increasing. About ten or fifteen years _ ago the exports from Amerio* to Great Britain were, comparatively speaking, but little, probably a few millions. Last year the value of exports reached, as nearly as I can remember, between £130,00J,0u0 and £140,000,000. Anyone studying the Home papers can see that there is a strong anti-free-trade feelinsr gaining ground there, and ifc will no doubt be made a test question at the next election. If Protection were such a drawback to a nation's prosperity, would not tho American people be the best judges in what concerns their own welfare, and, if bad, " have none of it." The fact of America flourishing so long under the Protective policy is a complete non sequitur to "S.C.'s" argument. Perhapß "S.C." will point to Victoria in illustration of his argument. It is altogether a mistaken idea that Protection has crippled Victoria. Anyone comparing the census returns for the last decade can see for themselves that her population is largely and quickly increasing, a pretty good index to a nation's prosperity. Apologising for the length of t his letter, I am, &c, J. G.