PROTECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7160, 14 March 1887, Page 1

PROTECTION.

No. xxni. A LOST LETTER. The following letter was forwarded to us by the " Man in the Street," who picked it up. it bears marks of being from a tourist to a friend at Home. As the ownership cannot be traced we present it to onr readers, as we quite agree with the subject matter, and feel indebted to the writer for his notes and comments:— ' Dunedin. Dear John,—Here I am in this land of beauty and plenty. I expected I should meet with out-of-the-way sights and notions when I landed. Ido not mean in the way of Maoris or moas, for here in this South Island they do not seem to have flourished. Of Maoris there are a few, of moas none—only the bones. But I was not disappointed, for there are queerer things than these. You know in England a real Tory of the old school is a curiosity—so. scarce that if Barnum could catch and cage one and show him at sixpence a peep it would be a paying spec. Now you will hardly believe me when I tell you they are as plentiful as sea shells here. But the funniest of all is they call themselves Liberals! Liberals calling out for'' protection to native industries" born and not born, and asking the Government to become the tool for picking the pockets of the people at large to fill the cash-boxes of a selfish few. And this they call ■protection. I need not tell you that they mean laying heavy custom-house duties upon things brought into the Colony, that they may get high prices for like things made in the Colony—a queer way of getting rich, truly. I was in luck's way in landing when I did, for a night or two afterwards I got the chance of hearing one of the leading statesmen of New Zealand speak on this very subject. There is a society of these old Tories here who call themselves a "Protection Society," or "League," or something of that sort, who clamor much for this pickpocket system. You will notice they don t call things by their right names. Thinks Ito myself, when I heard the name they gave themselves : that's a sort of trying to get money under false pretenceß; for it does not seem to me - that there is much difference between putting your hand into another man's pocket, and taking his money against his will, and using a tool to do it instead of your hand. And these people are trying to use the Government as a tool for that purpose. No; Protection is not the right name for the Society. It wouldn't be nice to call it "The Government Pickpocket Society," because there are many men who belong to it that would sit on the Bench and sentence any vulgar pickpocket brought before them to punishment for such a shocking offence. It wouldn't do to offend their Worships and say in effect "You're another"; and yet one ought to speak the truth. Well, then, if I had to name this Society I would give it a nicer - sounding name than. "pickpocket." I would call it "The Otago Aggression Society," because it attacks everybody else for the sake of its protegds. But I suppose they won't take my advice and change their name, although they do want to take part of working men'B wages without earning it in any way. I am told that the Premier, who professes to. understand all about everything, used to be very bitter against owners of land, and talked very big about the " unearned increment," meaning thereby the increase in the value of land through improvements in the country for which they only paid a share in taxation. It is reported he says nothing now against the "unearned increment "in the price of goods asked for by the " Aggression Society" at the cost of'the people. Now, if the landowners' property was raised in value by national improvements they did not pay wholly for, everybody else shared in the benefit; but if the "Aggression Society " succeed in getting what they want, their " unearned increment" will be got by fleecing everybody else. They will take all and give nothing for it. But I want to tell yon about the meeting I was at. It appears that the Colonial Treasurer, Sir Julius Vogel, was doing a bit of stumping. He had been at a place called . Lawrence; a great place for fruit growing, and the nearest town to some valuable gold mines. I believe the Government whip is member for this place in the New Zealand Parliament—so Sir Julius had been making a stump speech there. It was too good a chance for the Aggressionists to miss, so they asked him to give them a speech too. Now when a member is on the stump in England, he is expected to say right out what he thinks on politioal matters, what party he belongs to, what measures he intends to advocate, and what to oppose. But here, in New Zealand, you may make the stump a fulcrum for a see-saw. It is done this way. You take a political plank and put it on a balance on the stamp; and then standing across the centre, give it an oratorical bias, . first one way and then the other, so that at the end of the speech nobody knows what side the speaker will support. That would not go down with us in England. But it seemed to be thought all right at the ( "Aggression Society's" meeting. It was,* held in the Lyceum Hall, a pretty little place built by the Freethinkers of Dunedin, so just the place for a see-saw speech. Sir Julius evidently did not feel himself quite at home in this Society. He spoke well, but I really could hardly understand him; and I think he did not want to be understood, for he afterwards challenged the newspapers to answer him, and if they proved him wrong he said he would pay LlO to the Benevolent Institute. Very good of him, was it not ? Only he knew lie was safe; but he sent one paper a corrected version of his arguments, and very funny it is. He was not long in putting his plank on the stump and getting on to his see-saw, for he said " he could not call himself-,* thoroughgoing Protectionist "—a proposition which he at cnce set himself to prove, and this is how he went about it. First, he told his hearers what Freetraders were. It was not exactly a true picture, but it answered his purpose, so he swayed his see-saw towards "Protection." He said he was not like that—his picture. Thinks Ito myself, neither is anybody else. Next he launched into what he wished to be understood as history : the story of the Freetrade movement—not according to Montgredien, 'Prof. Leone Levi, Mr Molesworth, nor anybody else that I ever heard of. Thinks I to myself, you should have read up before yon ventured on such slippery ground, Sir Johns. Your notions may do for the colonies, bnt even Lord Penzance would hesitate to say such things before a meeting like this in England. I do not think I could give you an idea how the see-saw worked had he not numbered his arguments; but having done so, let us take his words in No. 7: " Fioetrade helped the manufacturers" (in Great Britain)—a swing towards Freetrade. " Import duties are natural and logical, and Great Britain, in remitting them, took as pronounced a step in the way of benefiting wer manufacturers as we would (sic) do by patting on heavy duties. Supposing we went the length of prohibitive duties, we shonld no more reduce the revenue than she did by re* nutting duties altogether." See-saw, steady! "The rummiest argument I ever heard,'* says Ito myself. "Import duties remitted —of course, no revenue; prohibitive duties imposed—of course, no revenue." I have heard that extremes meet; Sir Julius proved it to a marvel. But what about results? Now for another swing towards Protection. He did not explain low Freetrade, by subjecting English manufacture* to competition with the world, helped the manufacturers. Nor did he .say how- the deficiency in the English revenue of L 2,500,000 was provided tor by : Sir Robert Peel. It would have beett too much of a bias against Protection to explained that, through Freetradein' England, the poor were provided witii cheaper living and many comforts, while ~tiu> .rfojfehad to pay an income tax Jo onkj&jiiJi &&0U to the

4.1, •.„,,<* remission of duties. Perrevenue x g£" pe rhaps he did not haps he had l ~teVA P ction side of his see-saw Wold have gone up; so he said nothing iust then of the high prices prohibitive duties would inflict on consumers, and the additional tax they would have to pay to make up the loss to the revenue. He did not say that Protection took more money from the poor in proportion to their income than from the rich ; he did not say that the money they paid was from their necessary speudings, not from their earnings. Though he kept those facts out of sight, so far his see-saw was steady. But the swing towards Protection became decided when he proceeded to show that " at first glance it appears that high duties which partly prohibit imports increase the cost to the consumer." Thinks I, he's swaying to Freetrade now; but I was wrong. " Many circumstances modify this conclusion. Importers charge much higher prices when not brought into competition with locally-made articles. Tbey lower their prices when local manufacturing begins. Again, as the local producing continues, the manufacturer improves and produces cheaper. So that you have the prospect of improvement in the local art ; cle, of greater cheapness, and of the importer reducinghisprice. Even if the increased duty addstothepriccatstarting,youhavctheright to expect that as the manufacture proceeds it will become more excellent in character and cheaper in price !" What a charming picture ! I was not surprised that the effort in the direction of Protection was so decided that down went that end, and he never recovered his balance ; he was a "gone coon" after that. It was evident he had been revelling in ideal pictures of the past, when vessels visited New Zealand at periods few and far between, spent four or five months on the voyage, and three months more in harbor, and made a trip round the world in about ten or twelve months. Of course importers cannot compete with each other, according to Sir Julius's view of the case, but only with local manufacturers. \ ou might import the best goods now, and sell them at fair prices; but, as the manufacturers cannot make them now, under the aggressive system, you must be content with '" things not cheap, but nasty," until they know how to do better ; and then, having for years paid for their improvement, and having seen manufacturers ruin each other through competition among themBelvea, you may have again to fall back upon importers, who, competing with each other, keep the market supplied with tho best goods at very moderate prices and profits. And though they can do this at once, you are bid to wait for years—at the cost of an unearned incremenl— payable through "aggression," not on the people's means, but out of their necessities. The best can be had without having to wait, without ruining manufacturers, who have been led to competo with each other by unnatural prices the result of high duties, without taking money out of people's pockets and giving them nothing back in return. AU this I thought to myself; and now I tell it to you, you will think with me. Absurd as was this argument, the Protection end of tho plank went down and never rose again.

It struck me, b'y the way, that this might be part of a Government technical education scheme. lam glad to say that education is one of the most pleasing features in this Colony. Boys and girls arc provided with free education—a very great boon. It is paid for by the State, and so everybody is interested in it—it is very properly paid out of the general revenuo. I have heard that Sir Julius grumbles at spending so much on school education, as it leaves him less to spend on other things ; but this idea of technical education in manufacturing, which, "as the manufacture proceeds, it will become more excellent in character and cheaper in price," is one of the most original I ever heard of. One tiling against it is its cost to the country and injustice to the many for the sake of the few. Another thing is, all experience is against it. Improvements in manufacture cost money, and nobody will lay out money until he is forced ; but now, as in all time, will get all he can out of the old things until they are worn out. Tlvnks I to myself, that is the most costly style of technical education I ever heard of. Sir Julius Vogcl then launched into a number of curious speculations, based upon imaginary prices of imaginary goods, at imaginary rates of duty; and arrived at imaginary result with which he amused the imaginations of his audience, but which I imagine your imagination would vote a bore. He then tried to make it out that Canad;; and the United States and other countries where the "aggressive" system prevails, had prospered because of it. Thinks I to myself, in those countries the Eeople complain sorely enough of bad times; ut, supposing they are as well off as Sir Julius says, nobody can tell how much better they would be had they had freedom of trade. Moreover, thinks I, if a man were to tell Sir Julius he was wrong, nobody could prove him so, any more than ho can prove himself right. Such arguments are only "I say it is," and somebody else says " I say it isn't." Humbug ! wasn't it ? I think I have said enough to give you an idea of Sir Julius's style of treating his subject; but I was desirous of hearing how he went about proving that import duties are logical and reasonable charges. He came to that at last, and this is what he BayE he said : Duties on imports are logical, reasonable charges; and it is not their imposition, but their non-imposition, which has to be explained and justified. Goods arc sent to the country because of the security its good government affords. If foreigners aro allowed to use a country (tll&t is, tako advantage of roads, police, protection, etc.) without paying towards the cost of its government, they are virtually protected against the inhabitants of that country.

That was hia argument. Well, thinks I, that's ruin ! Everybody that knows anything knows if foreigners send thoir goods to be sold, and they are carted along the roads or carried by railroad, the foreigner does not pay the carriage, but tho people who wse the goods. The foreigner just get 3 the same price for his goods in the port of import as he does 100 miles up the country ; but it costs the people up the country the rates of transport in addition. Neither does the foreigner ask anything about good government when he ships his goods to order. All he wants to know is if his bills will be met at maturity; that the buyer—the importer—is good for the money. If that is all the logic m favor of import duties there's nothing in that, as you know well in your business exEerienoo. But the logic seems to mo to ear the other way, as I saw shown by an article in a paper, ' The Evening Star,' where it was proved that "import duties" pressed unjustly on the poorer classes, because they raised the price of goods consumed equally by them and by the rich, who scarcely felt tho increased price ; and moreover they are condemned by the first canon of taxation, which requires a man to be taxed according to his ability, not according to his spending* or necessities. The only and poor excuse is their expediency, as being easily collected ; but in the abstract they, are unreasonable, illogical, and dangerous, because they may \>\ used by ignorant or corrupt legislators for aggressive, or, as they are called euphoniously, protective purposes, i.e., making one class rich at the coat of the rest of the people. Now, I daiesay you are tired of this long letter, and perhaps of my comments upon what I heard and road ; but I cannot close it without giving you another taste of this New Zealand logic. Sir Julius considers his position as an aggresaionist much strengthened by the duties of Governments. Just ponder over the following scintillations of genius in support of an aggressive policy : The whole syatem of government largely consists of the State's protection of different classes of the community. It is rarely thai any measure affects tho whole people. Protection logically means advantages which the whole community grants to any section of the community. Thus low telegraphic and postal charges for the Press, free education, the abolition of tolls, free roads, low railway rates, and laws in the Interests of the professions, are all Protection for those for whom these arrangements have their advantages. Thinks I, was ever word so tortured since the world began as this word "Protection." If a road is made from town to town, or hamlet to hamlet, or to a man's farm, or hia house, Sir Juliub Bays " If s Protection," and concludes, therefore, it's right to impose protective dnties on Imports that a few may thrive at the expense of the many. If the electric telegraph and poßt office form machinery for communication for all classes who pay for their use when they find they need them, Sir Julius sajjrtr "that's Protection," therefore you may levy protective or prohibitive duties on goods imported in favor of a class. If free education is given in order to pre-

pare all classes of children for the duties of good citizenship, Sir Julius says " that's Protection "; thereforo you may levy prohibitive or protective duties on imports that one class may profit at the expense of the rest. If railways instead of common roads are constructed as part of the plant or national machinery of commerce for the use of all the people at the cost of all the people, Sir Julius says " that's Protection "; therefore you may levy prohibitive or protective duties on imports for the benefit of a few of the people. In the face of such logic Aristotle would have bolted. The old Greek's nerves could not have stood the shock. I fancy I see the old fellow's ghost stamping with rage and exclaiming: "Call that logic or reason! Bosh !" However, I am not Aristotle, nor his ghost; but when I got to my inn 1 turned to Herbert Spencer and read— What crudiJ theories prevail also respecting tho power of a Legislature to encourage different branches of industry—"agricultural interests" and "other interests." It is not farmers only who labor under tho mistake that their occupation can be mado permanently more prosperous than the rest by Act of Parliament; educated townspeople, too, participate in tho delusion, quite forgetting that the greater profitableness given to a particular trade inevitably draws into that trade such an increased number of competitors as quickly to reduce its proffered advantages to the general level, and even for a time below that level. Is not tho educator wanted behind tho counter aud on tho farm as well as in the workshop ? But I must stop. I [The rest was private and the last sheet missing, so it was impossible to transmit it to the writer, who, perhaps, on reading it in tho Evening Star, may bo able to send it to his friends at Home.]