PROTECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7189, 18 April 1887, Page 4

PROTECTION.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sl«,—After reading “ Honesty’s ” letter in your issue, I could help smiling at his fears as to the result of Protection. I thought that what has been put forth under the name of an argument having been proved to be false in America, Canada, ami Victoria, would not be harped on again, “Honesty” admits that we shall have a revival under Protection for a short time, but a sure collapse after, and asserts that it was so in America. I deny this, and ask him for clear proof of his assertion. It seems to me a strange thing that we, a handful of people, having brothers and sisters, sons and daughters out of work, and compelled to go to Victoria to find it, should refuse to imEose a higher tax upon ready-made goods, when y so doing we may keep fully employed those who are here and bring back those who have left us. “Honesty” writes like most Freetraders, as if imposing faxes on goods were patting the money into the pockets of the manufacturers, or as if it were lost to the Colony. Where does it go but into the public coffer to be used for governmental expenses. Now a 10 per cent, increase on ad valorem goods would not at once lesson the amount of revenue, but increase it, and it would hardly increase the price to the purchaser. The importers, no doubt, would not have the large profits they now have, and local industry would have an advantage given to it. I agree with “Honesty that the members of our Government give far too high salaries; LIO,OOO to one man, who nominally governs abou - . half a million people, is a form of human idolatry. There is no man in this country who ought to get more than LI,OOO a-year, for he is not worth it. If it be said that he can make more in business I reply that he cannot do it—if he charged a reasonable price for his services. Extortion is as much a sin as stealing. In conclusion, Iwouldask “Honesty” if heconaiders it honest to get into debt for goods which we can manufacture for ourselves, and so keep in the Colony some of the seven millions which we send away. Would it not pay the country much better to do as they have done in America and elsewhere, viz, impose such a tariff as has compelled the workmen formerly employed by them outside to come here and contribute to the prosperity of the country ? I am firmly persuaded that Protection is the only policy that will enable us to be truly honest.—l am, eta, j»jn» Dunedin, April 16. TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —“J.L.” denounces my statement relative to the decadence of the Victorian population between the years 1871-81 as misleading, and attributes such decrease to the Public Works policy of New Zealand and New South Wales. As far as the Public Works policy of New South Wales is concerned as a factor in

reducing the Victorian population, we may at once dispose of such a silly argument by pointing out that up to 1882 Victoria had borrowed and expended L 22,593,000, and New South Wales but L 18,897,000. or L 3,500,000 less than Victoria. So much for the position of “J.L. ’s ” argument. Now for New Zealand. A comparison of the increase of the respective populations of Victoria and New Souih Wales during the period 1871-82 will be found usef il) in this connection:— 1871. 1882. Increase Population of Victoria .. 732,000 882,000 150,000 Population ol New South Wales 604,000 781,000 277.000 In 1871 the duties in Victoria were doubled, and after eleven years of high duties or “protion” her population has increased 150,000 ana she owes roughly 22,500,000. New South Wales, on the other hand, abolished the duties in 1873, and after two years of duties and nine years freetrade, or eleven years in all, finds her population increased by 277,000 and owes L 3,500,000 less than Victoria. I ■ must also be borne in mind that whilst Victoria’s population had increased by 150,000, the number of males between twenty-seven and forty-three had decreased by 37,000 despite the “protection afforded by the State against the ‘ pauper labor of Europe; and yet in New South Wales during the same period the number of males between twenty-five and forty-five had increased by 27,000. And this increase of men in the prime of life took place in the face of tho “fierce competition of the pauper labor of Europe” and the entire absence of a “protective tariff.” Now for “J.L.’s" affirmation to the effo’.t that this decrease of Victoria's population is due to tho Public Works policy of New Zealand. Let us, for tho sake of argument, assume the correctness of this astounding proposition. “J.L.” will then have to explain why tho inhabitants of Victoria, Including the pick of the population —viz., men in the prime of life, projected, as they were, by a high tariff from the “pauper labor of Europe” —should have left for New Zealand, and the inhabitants of New South Wales, left by an inconsiderate Government to shift for itself under an accursed Freetrade tariff and compete with the “pauper labor ” as best it could, should have remained there, and, strange to say, increased and multiplied. I await “J.L.’s’’answer.—l am, etc., Australian. Dunedin, April 16.