PROTECTION AND LAWYERS.

Evening Star, Issue 7385, 3 December 1887, Page 1 (Supplement)

PROTECTION AND LAWYERS.

TO THE EDITOR.

g lß) _One of the favorite arguments of Sir Robert Stout ami other Protectionists in favor of their contention is that because the Government of New Zealand make roads and railways, build schools and educate the children, interfere with the arrangements for the carrying on of factories, mines, etc., therefore the Government should also protect native industries* In his address at the meeting of the Protection League the other ni|ht, Mr Hutchison used this ancient sophism as a sort of (tvyuiHcnlum ad hoiiiina/i against Mr F. R. Chapman when he said “if lawyers rejJly believe in Freetrade let them strive to throw open their own profession freely to every one who chooses to adopt it.” Argument of this sort may be good enough for a meeting of Protectionists, but it can only be because they habitually delude themselves and would like to delude others. .. „ . If Mr Chapman had been combating Protectionist theories on the lofty ground sometimes assumed by Freetraders, viz,, that the State has no business to interfere with any of these thing?, then Mr Hutchison’s retort would have been perfectly fair. But Freetraders in New Zealand do not take this position at all. They deal with the question as to when and how far Government should interfere with such concerns as a practical question; and, instead of protesting against all State intervention, they deal with each case in which such intervention is claimed on its merit?. It requires no argument to show that in a country like this, the making of roads, the conveyance of letters, etc., come well within the functions of the State. Whether the State should build schools and provide free education are questions on which there is room for difference of opinion ; and so with other departments ; but the question to he decided in each instance is simply this: Wculd it be for the benefit of the community as a whole that the Legislature should into l fere? Bach cue iu which such interference is claimed is to be decided, after consideiation of all surrounding circumstances and probable consequences, and the burden of showing that State interference in any particular instance would be generally advantageous, lies upon those who claim it; and that w a very heavy burden indeed for those who claim that Government should impose certain restnotions upon production. Protectionists in this country generally call themselves the only true Liberals, and as Liberals they claim that absolute freedom of individual action should prevail within the sphere of politics. Liberals in England claim that the same freedom of action should be the rule in industry as well; and surely it is incumbent upon our Liberals in New Zealand to-show why freedom should not be the rule m industry as it is in politics. _ . ~ To argue, as the president of the Protection League does, that because a man belongs to a protected profession he cannot be a sincere Freetrader, is simply puerile; the fact of a man being a member of such a profession is no proof that he approves of legislative restrictions being applied to it. I admit that if a Freetrader is fuch on the ground of pure and simple latm. hire, he cannot logically approve of legislative restrictions as applicable to the medical and legal professions; but that is not the position usually taken by Freetraders, and it may very well be that legislative interference may be justifiable in one case and not m the other; and it is open to the Protectionist to *how (if be can) that it is beneficial m the case of trade and injurious in the case of the professions. Thera is this difference, however, in favor of the pro-fessions-that the restrictions imposed upon their practice are not imposed for the benefit ot the members of tbo professions, but m the interests of those who employ professional services, the object being the protection of the public from the danger of employing incompetent practitioners lam not contending now that this is a sufficient reason for the existence of such real ™ons °* P r ‘YJ‘ leges, whichever they may bo cr. led. To dispose of this favorite argumeni of Bir Robert Stout, Sir Julius Vogel, and the presidentof the Protection League, it is sufficient for me to show, as I have done, that itiaoquallyopen to a Freetrader to justify restrict ons m the case of the profession, while he ccnderans ifc m the sphere of industry, and to a Pro .\ ect “> »it when applied to trade while objecting privileges or restrictions in the profession?. Each case is to be decided by different considerations, and in the same way it does follow that because the Government make and work railways, build schools, etc., it shouia therefore, interfere for the protection of local industries.— l am, etc., Titmouse. Dunedin, November 29.