PROTECTION RUN MAD.

Evening Star, Issue 7471, 15 March 1888, Page 1

PROTECTION RUN MAD.

The proceedings at the meeting of the Otago Protectionists’ Association on Monday evening were exceedingly diverting, and indicate the practical difficulties which stand in the way of giving full effect to the theory of Protection. The question of a duty on imported fruit gave rise to r very pretty squabble, and the meeting had to be reminded that the cause would infallibly come to grief unless Protectionists gave in to each other and ceased to quarrel among themselves. The proposition of the secretary—- “ That the protection most necessary “ to the development of fruit-growing “ is a uniform tariff over the New Zea- “ land railways, the charge to be based “ upon say five miles carriage, irrespec- “ tive of distance”—elicited strong opposition, on the ground that the fruitgrowers of Canterbury would be able, under such a tariff, to compete withTeviot

and Clyde in the Dunedin market. If the principle of Protection is once admitted the application cannot equitably stop at the ports of entry. Each provincial district, town, hamlet, and county must be protected, and the climax of absurdity would thus be reached. It was positively argued in effect that the Otago fruit-growers should be not only secured from foreign but from interprovincial competition. We can hardly suppose that the Legislature will stultify itself by imposing a duty on imported fresh fruit and the sulphurised fruit used for jam manufacture ; but that a resolution to this effect should be passed does not say much for the good sense of the association. Mr C. T. Paterson stated with

truth that “ the only protection the “ fruit-growers required was the pro- “ tection they could afford themselves, “by growing the right kind of fruit, “picking it properly, packing- it “properly, and sending it into the “ market in a proper condition,” The interests of the consumer, it was remarked by one member in the course of the discussion, were “not being considered at all”; but this is nothing new with the advocates of Protection, who, in this instance, would not only make the prices of a useful and healthful article of food prohibitive, but tax the local manufacturer of jam, so that this adjunct to the dietary of the working classes may be placed out of their reach. It is notable that the fruit-growers themselves do not demand protective duties—are quite indifferent, indeed, in many instances, to the demands of the trade failing to supply even what is actually ordered. Apart from consideration of the consumer, is it not veritably absurd to protect an industry which, whilst capable of large development, takes no manner of care or trouble to develop itself or to secure the markets it could easily command 1

In respect to the proposed duty of 2s 6d per ton on imported coal, Messrs Reid and Gray gave the association a nut to crack by a communication in which they pointed out that the imposition of such a duty would be a severe handicap on the important industry they pursue, in that they are obliged to use Newcastle coal exclusively for their smithy forge; the West Coast coal being unsuitable by reason of the large proportion of sulphur it contains. As a matter of fact, a duty on coal would, as we pointed out in a recent article, cripple to a greater or less extent every industry in the colony. In many of these industries, as in Reid and Gray’s factory, the West Coast coal cannot be used; whilst in respect to all, the

enhanced price—for the price of all coal niost certainly would be enhanced—would be a serious tax. The letter of Messrs Kennedy Bros., of Greymouth, which appeared in our issue of Tuesday, is ingenious in its way, but hardly satisfactory. In their own interests and those of other colliery proprietors on the West Coast they recommend a duty of 5s per ton on imported coal, and they assert that, were the importation thus practically prohibited, Westport and Greymouth could double their present output, and thus supply the whole colonial demand. The implication is that the demand is limited, owing to the market being supplied with imported coal. This is not, however, the only reason, as shown by Messrs Reid ana Gray, and it is in their own power most distinctly, by increasing the output and considerably under selling the

imported article, ■which they should be well able to do, to secure the great proportion of the supply. With the valid objection to the quality of the coal in respect to use for certain purposes, they can never hope, under any circumstances, to secure the monopoly. As in the case of the fruit-growers, no protection is needed by the colliery proprietors beyond that which they can afford to themselves by supplying the consumers at a more reasonable price than has ruled and rules at present* The really formidable rivals to the West Coast coal is the new bituminous coal found in so many localities, of varying quality—good, bad, and indifferent. The comj parative cheapness recommends this to the household, and it fairly answers ordinary purposes. A high duty, raising the price all round, would give a fillip to other coal mines besides those on the West Coast—a little fact which Messrs Kennedy Bros, appear not to have taken into consideration* As to the wonders which take place if 1.30,000 tons additional wore raised at Greymouth and Westport, these l)elong rather to the field of imagination than of argument. If it be the fact that the mines at present open could to

this extent increase their output by work being proceeded with every day, whereas now many days are idle, how could it eventuate that by working full time the population engaged in and dependent on the mines would be increased by 5,000 1 The men required must be there now, employed during the working days, and it must be presumed laying by on the idle days. Explanation is certainly here required. We are under the idea, however, that Messrs Kennedy Bros, will have to await their souls in patience for an indefinite period before they are gratified by a 5s per ton import duty. It is difficult to understand what the association propose to effect by the imposition of an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent, on precious stones, whether set or unset. Such a duty does not appear to be within the scope of Protection, and is only likely to spoil the jeweller’s trade by rendering his goods too costly—i.e., if he paid the duty on them. The opinion, however, may reasonably be entertained that there would be a good deal of smuggling carried on, and that the revenue would not profit appreciably. In regard to the proposal to re-establish the distillation of ardent spirits within the colony, we shall have something to say in a future article.