A NOTABLE SPEECH.

Evening Star, Issue 7307, 3 September 1887, Page 1

A NOTABLE SPEECH.

The Foresters’ Hall, Marton (we leam from the Rangitikei Advocate), was crowded on Saturday to its utmost capacity .by persona desirous of listening to Mr R, C. Bruce. The gallery was reserved for ladies, and every seat there was filled. The appearance of Mr Bruce on the platform was greeted with loud and prolonged cheering, which was renewed when he rose to speak. We shall make considerable extracts from his speech. After referring to the financial position of the Colony he dealt at length with PROTECTION' AND FREETRADE.

About three years ago those doctors, our present Government, took charge of the patient, and they told us that he was well enough, merely suffering from unskilful treatment, but that under their care he would soon be restored to ruddy health. But what is the state of the patient to-day ? Certainly worse than than of three years ago Now they admit his “ trouble,” but they have diagnosed the disease and discovered the remedies. And which of these nostrums stands first on the list? Protection, which means bleeding, and still further impairing the strength of the unfortunate patient. Now, as many of you have not studied this very plausible subject of Protection, I shall endeavor, as briefly as possible, to analyse and place it before you. First of all let me tell you that commerce between nations is merely exchange—exchange direct and indirect, but still and always exchange. Also, that money, whether in coin or in pieces of paper, is not wealth intrinsically considered; it is merely the token of wealth used for the purpose of facilitating exchange. If we were to shut ourselves out from the rest of the world, and if every man, woman, and child in the Colony had ten millions of sovereigns each, we should be poorer rather than richer. Now, 1 shall endeavor to show you that Protection diverts labor and capital from indigenous pursuits to artificial and less payable pursuits, and that as an inference it is an impoverishing policy. Freetrade says to a nation: Buy in the cheapest market and do not attempt to produce those articles of commerce of which you stand in need, and which the men of other nations are either able or willing to supply you with at a less cost than you can produce them yourselves. Protection, on the other hand, says : Supply your own wants, keep the money in the country, and give employment to your population. Now, remember what I have already told you, commerce Is exchange that exports pay for imports. Mr Bruce here went on to prove his argument by means of a hypothetical illustration, which had its counterpart in almost actual fact. Why, he asked, were Protectionists not logical ? why did they not tell us to grow our own tea and sugar under glass ? What employment that would give and what an enormous quantity of money it would keep in the country the thing was as clear as mud. He then went on to say: And Protectionists have the audacity to come to us in the country and tell us that we should get things more cheaply under a policy of Protection. and, so to speak, in the next breath they tell the artisans in the city that they

must have “sufficient” protection against the pauper labor of Europe—sufficient protection, whether it be 30, 50, or 100 per cent. Let us imagine what this would mean to the country. Suppose that the Provincial District of Wellington imports goods annually from Britain to the value of a million sterling, and that by imposing an import duty of 50 per cent, these goods could be made in Wellington. What wonld this mean to the country? Additional taxation to the tune of balf-a-million sterling annually. To the employer of labor in the country it would mean that he must either reduce the number of his men or reduce their wages—either or both. And to the poor man in the country it would mean that, in addition to diminished employment or reduced wages, either or both, he wonld have to give higher prices for much of what he used. “ Ah, but,” Protectionists say, “it would give you a home market.” This argument is a most transparently absurd one, for those markets which absorb our surplus produce—be that surplus large or small—must of necessity determine onr colonial levels. Does the consumption of coal in Newcastle affect its price at the mouth of the pit ? Does the consumption of flour iu Marton affect the Rangitikei levels of wheat ? Let me push the argument a little further. Suppose that our output of wool is 200,000 bales, and that we coaid work it all up and wanted more, would not then wool come in here from Australia at London levels? And that limit must be Reached in reference to anything which we now export before the country produce is

protected by the cost of carnage from abroad. Again, they tell us no nation can become powerful without manufactures. They who say so must have read history with the page upside down. We have read, on the highest authority, that of all other nations, a nation of shepherds is the most irresistible. Mr Bruce went on to criticise what he called the “bogey” of the balance of trade. He said : Protectionists say here, as they say in England, your imports are in excess, largely in excess, of your exports, therefore you must be going steadily to the wall. This idea is based upon a most absurd apprehension. Those who say so think that a nation whose imports show an excess over her exports is like an individual who is in receipt of an income of, say, L3ooa-year, and who spends L4OO. Let me show you the absurdity of the argument by mean* o£ an illustration. We will suppose that down near the South P ole there are some islands inhabited by a raee of savages, who catch seals having skins of a valuable character. I charter a schooner, and take with me LIOO worth of tomahawks and glass beads, which I exchange for skins which are worth, on arrival here, LI,OOO. Here is the balance of trade against os with a vengeance, but nearly LSOO has been made in the transaction. Having given another illustration, Mr Bruce went on to say in ten years the “balanceof trade ” was against England to the tunc of 1,137 millions, and in about the same time the national wealth In- ' creased about 1,000 millions. Some people are so ignorant as to think that the balance against has to be paid in sovereigns, whereas the whole of the precious metal in England, including gold ornaments, wedding rings, brooches, etc., would not exceed in value 200 millions; and here, in New Zealand, we have only 2,000,000 sovereigns, mainly used for internal commerce. Protectionists point with pride to our woolleu industries, and say: “There is a nut which yon cannot crack ; they have, since they have started, reduced the price of woollen goods 30 per cent.” But they forget that wool has fallen fully that within the same period, and many other things proportionately, which, of course, lessens the cost of production. Now, let me put this matter /practically before you. We in Rangitikei, masters and men, are, so to spead, a co-operative society, growing wool. Now, suppose, for argument’s sake, that we exchange 1,000,0001b of wool annually with Britain for the goods which we require, with Jin import duty of 50 per cent., we should have to give L 1,500,000 for the same quantity manufactured in Wellington. Let me place the question before working men in this way A man is working on a farm mwigting his employer to raise wool. His wages are a share of the profits—that is, of the wool grown. Now whether would he give 1001b of the wool, his wages, for any given article to a man who works in Bradford or Sheffield, or whether would he import that man with his machinery to Wellington, and there give him Ll5O for the same article ? For you would either have to import tiie labor and capital necessary or take it from the indigenous pursuits of the Colony. Mr Bruce went on to say that, having so far dwelt with principles, he would give some interesting details showing the result of Protection in the United States. He showed the evil effects of Protection in that country, and having referred to the price for

labor pointed out that it must bo regulated by the stem laws of political economy. He condemned the action of the Premier in his efforts to show that the Opposition wished to lower the price of labor, which must be regulated by supply and demand. He showed, from statistics, how Britain has progressed since her adoption of a Freetrade policy, and finished his remarks on this subject by saying that, if they elected him, it would be as an absolute Freetrader. GRADUATED PROPERTY TAX. He then went on to say ; Another of their schemes or nostrums to which I am hostile, and which is of a distinctly revolutionary character, is a graduated system of taxation. They propose that all whose property exceeds L 2.500 in value should pay one penny in the £ ; those under, 13-16ths, as under existing conditions. But when you once admit this principle, where is it to end ? If a penny for some to-day, why not a shilling for some to-morrow ? Now, if a man has L 5,000 and pays 5,000 pence, and if another has L 50.000 and pays 50,000 pence, that is perfectly fair, equitable, and comprehensible ; but once, as I have said, admit the principle that a man should bo singled out for punishment merely because he had exceptional ability, industry, and thrift —then I say most distinctly and emphatically that you sanction the doctrine of confiscation, and you have adopted a most excellent method of driving capital out of the country, and causing capitalists to shun our shores. And you will also have gone far in the direction of stifling that individual energy and enterprise which is in the aggregate that of the nation. The opponents of the property tax cry : “ Oh, it is a bad tax ; it is a tax upon industry.” What humbug! What is any tax but a tax upon industry ? What is wealth but the accumulation of industry ? You must tax wealth ; you can’t tax property. This graduated scheme of taxation appears to me a most iniquitous proposal, and it is calculated to have most injurious effects.