MUTTON AND WOOL.

Evening Post, Volume XLI, Issue 138, 13 June 1891, Page 3

MUTTON AND WOOL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir. — Viewed by the faint glimmer of the politicians guiding star, expediency, your suggested export duty on wool and mutton, accompanied by a remission of import duties on other necessaries to an equal amount, may look like a step, though a very short one, towards equalising the sacrifices conHumors have now to make to prevent our leaky ship of state becoming a total wreck on the financial breakers, ahead, astern, and on both bows. Freely and fully admitting both the justice and expediency of squeezing from our " wool kings," beef barons, and mutton magnates a more eqnitable and liberal contribution to the revenue, I must yet tako exception to tho justice and Wisdom of your proposed mode of bringing them to book. You say, " Wool and meat form the Btiiplo of onr exports," and "we by no means underrate tho value of the frozen meat trade. It developed at a time whon a serious financial crisis was before us, and it has proved almost a national salvation. It has poured wealth into the country, and relieved thousands of industrious settlors from financial pressure." And yet yon can suggest no more fitting reward for these good deeds, these benefits conferred, than the imposition of a fine or penalty that must reduce the profits of producers, increase the cost to consumers, and lessen the incentive to a farther development of the trade . " Shades of Cobden ! "What a proposed travesty of justice is here ! " As a temporary expedient under present conditions, our average politicians may approve it, but undor proper conditions such a return of evil for good cannot bo either wise, just, or necessary, and for the simple reason that thero is a bettor plan by which the desired end may be accomplished without injustice to anyone, or injury to any industry. While contending that it would be unjust and unwise- to inflict on the producers of wool and meat any penalty for nets and deeds beneficial to the community an a whole, I have no intention, and less wish, to defend such of their acts and deeds as landowners, as you, sir, rightly and forcibly contend are, beyond doubt, injurious. These may be summarised as follows : — That these so-called owners of the inalienable birthright of the people, the land, haying obtained by class legislation the legal right to misuse and abuse the same, as their selfinterests or swoet will may dictate, do so misuse and abuse it by devoting it to a purpose loss useful and profitable to the community than that for w'nioh Nature has fitted it. That by this misuse and abuse they filch from the toilers another birthright, tho opportunity of employing their labour in the production of the wealth the land would yield, were something more than " the very minimum of manual labour " profitably employed thereon. That like their equally obnoxious prototypes of the deep, the alldevonring fqualidm, they, impelled thereto by natural instincts, act on the principle of taking all and returning nothing by which " the soil will become sterilised and their muttons fall victims to new and terrible diseases, something that may prove even worse than those nineteenth century mild reproductions of Egyptian plagues, tho scab, the rabbits, and last though not least, tho " Great Vogelian Policy." Surely it must be evident that by substituting the value of the land misused, for the value of the wool and meat exported, as the basis of your suggested penalty, your laudable object, a nearer approach to equality of Bacrifico will be achieved without violence to the half-and-half Freetrade policy you sometimes advocate, and without injury to any industry, or injustice to the innocent consumers of wool and frozen meat. I unhesitatingly assert that the only " practicable way by which our legislators can mitigato the acknowledged evils of our ruinous " inequality of sacrifice " is the removal of the penalties consumers Lave to pay for the privilege of living 1 , and the substitution therefor of like penalties on the privileges so unwisely and unjustly granted to monopoly. In conclusion, I would ask your readers, of both high and low degree, to ponder well the following extracts from M. Comusen's unique and useful Tolume, "Methods, Maxims, and Metaphora: "— If you consider tho production of wealth a good thing, kill monopoly. If you consider an equitable distribution of that wealth a good thing, kill monopoly. If you would mako the life of the toiler worth living, kill monopoly. If you would unmuzzle tho patient ox that treaaoth out the corn, kill monopoly. If you approve of a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and vice verta, kill monopoly. If you believe in freedom of contract, kill monopoly. If you think the workers should be supplied with neoossaries beforo luxuries are served out to the drones, kill monopoly. U*lf J'ou think the oighth Commandment houlabe obeyed, kill monopoly. I am, &c, Economibt. Pioton, 9th Jnne.