FREEIRADE.

Evening Star, Issue 7168, 23 March 1887, Page 2

FREEIRADE.

TO THE EDITOR. ( Sir,— The January number of the tortnightly Keview ’ contains an excellent article on “Agricultural and Commercial Depression, the closing sentences of which may well be reproduced : “ A marked and significant contrast, great'y in favor of this country, may oven now be drawn between the actual condition or England under her Freetrade policy, and the distressed condition of those countries which are suffering much more acutely fro™. ** l ? r restrictive commercial systems and their obnoxious and injurious be a suicidal and most short-sighted policy on the part of any of our political leaders were they to lend any countenance to the protectionist or reciprocity theories which are now being inculcated by a few of our less responsible politicians. We shall succeed best by adhering to the old lines of unrestricted commerce, by the following of which we have enormously increased our national wealth during the last forty years. The present trade depression, it is to be hoped, may not be of long duration ; but in any case, it affords no justification whatever for the expectation that Protection, under any name or form, would bring us the smallest alleviation. In respect of those industries which arc now suffering most acutely —namely, shipowning and shipbuilding—it must be evident that any policy which would restrict the interchange of commodities would only bring prejudice and injury instead of comfert and relief.—l am, etc., Fbkkteadk. Dunedin, March 19.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Will you kindly allow me to point out to Mr Fraser that the clipping from the speech of Senator Blaine, published in your issue of this evening at his request, is proof positive that the people of the United States have been taxed most heavily for the benefit of the iron and steel manufacturers of America, or, to put it in another way, for the benefit of a huge monopoly, viz., the “Bessemer Steel Company, Limited, The Senator tells us that the steel products m America between July 1870 and July 188 a totted up to 1,250,000,000d01. And he concedes that the manufacturers made for themselves 250,000,000d01, or L 50.000.000. And the Senator tells us also that these results could not bave been achieved had it not been for the duty. What does this bring us to ? Simply this, that in fifteen years America paid L 50,000,000 more for her steel products than she had any occasion to. No wonder the combination referred to could afford to pay the “ Vulcan Steel Works,” St. Louis. LBO.OCO as a bonus for not running their works. Did the working men employed there get their share of this nice little amount ? Scarcely; they were left to shift for themselves. If the Senator’s statement is correct when he affirms that it was American competition that reduced the price of steel, how comes it that the price of steel rails in England rose from 55d0l in 1869 and 51dol in 1870 to 80dol in 1873 ? And again, in 1879 the English price of steel rails rose from 25d0l to 35d01. Does this look like American competition reducing the price . As a nutter of fact, the American manufacturers promptly followed suit, and raised the price of their goods from 48doI to 67d01 a and for a short period to even 90dol, thus taking full advantage of the heavy tariff; and further, they have invariably adapted their prices, to English prices, plus duty and freight. During the twelve years ended 1880 the average price of steel rails of American manufacture was S3doL If the steel rails bad been pu-chased in England and laid down in New York, after paying the 28dol per ton duty and 7dol for freight and other charges, the average cost to America would have been 89dol per ton. Do not these figures show that the American manufacturer availed himself of the protective duty? Certainly tLs Senator would have us believe that had it not been for American competition the price of steel rails would never have been reduced by England. I submit, sir, that this statement is wholly misleading. An increased demand for steel rail- from America would have caused proportionate extension of the industry iu England. Capital would have been invested, an increased number of mills would have been brought into operation, and the consequent keen competition iu England for the American trade would unquestionably have kept prices down. Business experience teaches us this. America would have been able to buy her rails during the period referred to (1869 to 1880) at an average coA of Gldol per ton instead of 83dol, and would thus have been relieved of the extra taxation incurred through producing them herself. I am, etc., Australian.* Dunedin, March 19.