Evening Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1891. COAL AND BREAD DUTIES.

Evening Post, Volume XLVIII, Issue 53, 31 August 1894, Page 2

Evening Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1891. COAL AND BREAD DUTIES.

Ministers appeared in their true colours last night. They stood revealed as at heart rank Tories, imbued with the Protective fallacies of a past age, incapablo of mastering the elements of modern political science, and blind to the teaohings furnished by the experience of other countries. They shamelessly avowed a desire to impose Protective duties on both coal and breadatuffs, and they indulged in repetition of the lonpexploded absurdity that such taxes would not increase the price of the taxed article to the consumer. " A paradox ! a paradox 1 at common sense it gaily mocks," To last night's debate the words of a rocent writer in a Victorian paper, .doaling with tariff debates there, fully apply. He says:— " One learns from hon. members that in- " fant industries need Protection, and that " the older the infants giow the more Pro- " teotion do they require ; that taxing an " article makes it cheaper ; that making an " article cheaper enables the manufacturer "to pay higher wages; that intercolonial " Freetrade is a necessity, but It would be " grossly unfair not to tax products coming || trom the sister States; that to raise " revenue at the Custom3you should impose t' duties to stop importations; that Protec- " tion lessens prices, and that the farmers " and miners who obtain .the benefit of || the reductions ate entitled to compensa- " tion for their ' patriotic sacrifices' "in paying more for commodities \ " that Protection sends up wages, but that " it iB absurd to say that the tariff attracts *' to the city, because the wages in the pro- " teoted trades are lower than in tho non- '| proteoted industries; that Protection de- " stroys the importers' monopoly, which is " good, and that prohibition will give the ' local manufacturer a monopoly, which "is better." We had all these paradoxical assertions lost night repeated with the utmost gravity, as if they were not founded on long-exploded fallacies. It does not require a very large amount of common sense to arrive at the trnth. If a Protective duty does not directly or indireotly raise the price of an article, its imposition cannot poauibly do any good to the producers. It it does raise the price, it inflicts an injury on the consumers, and, as the latter are enormously the greater number, tfre many must bo sacrificed to the few. If Protection is partial it benefits a few at the cost of many. If Protection is general and goos all round equally, it can benefit no one, but may injure all in their external trade and relations. Ministers contend that a Protective duty on coal and breadstuffß will not raise the price to the consumer. Th»y say all that will happen will bo that the conaumer will have to use the local instead of tho imported article. Accepting this statement, what does it amount to except an indirect increase of prioef New Zealand coal might not rise beyond its present price, although it is very unlikely, if Newcastle coal were taxed, but manufacturers would be forced to use New Zealand coal where they now use Newcastle. We presume they use Newcastle ooal now beoause it is better than New Zealand ooal at the present price, or suits their purposes better. If, therefore, they are forced to nso an inferior or less suitable fuel, it amounts indireotly to an increase of Co3t in the manufacture they are engaged in, even though the New Zealand ooal may not cost more per ton than they could have purchased it at before the duty was imposed. And if the cost of manufacture is thus increased by the forced use of an inferior or less snitable fuel, we may be pretty sure that the difference will be made up by reduction of wages or inorease of price to the consumer, or partly by eaoh. The same reasoning applies to a Protective duty on wheat and flour. Even in the improbable contingency of its not increasing the price of bread, it must, to be of any use to farmers, force bakers to use New Zealand flour where they now use Australian, and 60 supply their customers with an inferior description of broad. The prioe might remain the same nominally, but the bread would be worth leas, and so the consumer would suffer indirectly. Ihe arguments to the contrary are transparent absurdities. But even if Protective duties on coal and breadstnffs would not injuriously affect consumers—the great body ol the peoplo—there never -was a more inopportune time to enter npon Customs reprisals towards other colonies and countries. The United Stares has at last, in pursuance of the policy of Freetrade whioh which has so strongly asserted itself there late'y, admitted our wool free," andTa's" Mr. Conn^-'JjT, the representative of that great Country, pointed out a few days ago, it would do a graoeful and politic act for this oolony to respond by a Customs concession on American produce of some kind. But the Ministers' Protective proclivities would evidently not permit of snoh a thing. The Protective duty which New South Wales placed on Netf Zealand produce has seriously affected our producers, but New South Wales has within tho last few weeks risen from its temporary Protective abasement, and with a mighty effort has thrown off the inoubus of Protection. It wisely made this great question of Freetrade the shibboleth of the avenue to Parliament, and Freetrade was triumphant by an overwhelming majority, so that there is now a Parliament in our mother colony pledged to its principles. It was the Liberal and tho Labour vote which brought this about. The enlightened advocates of Liberal principles and Labour interests in New South Wales, after trying both Protection and Freetrade, have recognised that national prosperity can only be secured under the latter. We may expect ere long to find a practical application of Freetrade principles in our favour if we refrain from offence, but if we attempt such weak reprisals as are in our power, then certainly there will be long delay in removing the duties whioh now bar the access of New Zealand produce to Australian ports. Our true policy is to wait patiently for the complete application of Freetrade principles to the New South Wales tariff. Again, in Victoria a general election is about to take place in which iho main issuo will be Freetrade v. Protection. We have every hope that the cause of enlightened Liberalism will triumph there as it has dono in Now South Walos. Is this, therefore, a suitable time for New Zealand to plunge deeper into the dark depths of Protection, and to set up fresh barriers againßt the free interchange of productions amongst the colonies of the Australasian Group ? To now plaoe a dnty on coal and to increase the duties on breadstuffs would be to shut this colony out of participation in the benefits which must otherwise naturally acorne to it from the operation of the Australian revulsion of feeling in favour of Freetrade and Reciprocity. New Zealand cannot afford to isolate itsejf, or to play the part of a fiscal Ishmael, with its hand against everybody, and_, as a natural result, everybody's hand against it. We hope that ere long Parties will be divided in this colony, as they are in New South Wales and Victoria, on the great principles involved in the issue of Freetrade against Protection. Last night's debate was a hopeful one. It showed that Freetrade principles are well understood and can be ably supported even in the present House, and it stamped Ministers as benighted Protectionists and rank Tories. Protection is absolutely incompatible with true Liberal principles. The Protectionist is necessarily a Tory, and guided by Tory traditions which are irreconoilable with the true Liberal creed. The Liberals of New Zealand will soon como to recognise this foot, and it will help the cause of good government that the present leaders of the Liberal party have revealed themselves as Tory wolves in tho fleecy disguiße of Liberal sheep. The Protectionists did not dar« to press Mr. R. M'Kknzie's coal-tax motion to a division. We rogret thisj as a division would have been instructive, and have shown who are the true Liberals in the House. After last night's discussion we do not expect to hear muoh more of the sister project of increasing the duty on breadstuffs. Ministers, we fear, will be too wise to force that question to a distinot issue on division.