FREETRADE v. PROTECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7449, 18 February 1888, Page 1 (Supplement)

FREETRADE v. PROTECTION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—A great deal has been written about Freetrade versus Protection, and many may think the problem threshed out; but the fearfully depressed state of affairs in New Zealand is sufficient excuse for again bringing the subject before the public. The exponents of Freetrade argue that it has made Great Britain what she is; but it should be remembered that the proverb “What is one man’s food is another man’s poison ” is equally as applicable to nations as to individuals. Freetrade may fce perfectly wholesome under certain conditions, but uuder altered circumstances qui e unassirailable. Here in New Zealand we have the finest conditions for producing the fruits of the earth in the known world. What, then, may we ask, is the cause of the stagnation and depression now existing ? Can it not be traced to the want of that fostering care and attention required by young countries equally as by young children 2 Docs she not require the support of a paternal Government who will lead her gently till she is able to run alone ? Is not the lack of this the cause of the restriction of her growth and the small advance made in the number of her factories ? We have not to go far to learn the lesson that judicious Protection in the earlier stages of a country’s existence brings with it prosperity, increased population, home manufactures, and desire on the part of the people to remain in their own country. This is its true cause—an unlimited demand for the products of the soil. When the world was young the edict went forth : “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the land. ’ The first part of the command, viz., being fruitful, New Zealand is certainly obeying; the second, and multiply, she certainly is not—and why ? Because, as soon as our boys become adults and should be earning and therefere spending money iu the Colony, what happens ? they go into a far country to live and there take unto them wives—forced by the policy of a Government who will not foster home industries and so provide employment for them. What is the sequel to this ? But that in a few years here as in Great Britain, where a large proportion of her male population are obliged to emigrate, the women soon become greatly iu excess of the men, with all its attendant evils. A large number of women have to look forward to a life of enforced celibacy, in direct opposition to the laws of Nature; many become the slaves of hysteria and hypoclioTuliiacism, and assist in filling the asylums; female labor becomes a drug in the market, and the cry is raised for employment for women. What we want here are factories of all descriptions. Nothing that can possibly be male in the Colony should be imported; and though at first the supply may appear greater than the demand, the field for laborwill soon attract population, who will in their turn spend their earnings on home-produced manufactures, and in a very short time there will be an ample market for the product of the manufacturers. By these measures, and these only, shall we attract capital and population to our shores to consume the fru ts of the earth so bountifully supplied; and those who live on the produce of the land will be able to look forward to a remunerative juice for the result of their labors, instead of trembling as they do now at every trifling fluctuation in the British market telegraphed from Home.—l am, etc., Aristobdlus. Dunedin, February 13.