Hawke's Bay Herald. MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1832. PROTECTION.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6369, 2 October 1882, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1832. PROTECTION.

An admission, more humiliating than surprising, was made by Major Atkinson when replying to questions put in the House as to possible reductions in the Customs tariff on woollen goods and jams. He stated that "great caution" would have to be exercised in dealing with tariff questions in future, " lest local industries which had started under the encouragement of a high tariff should be injured." This i 3 protective doctrine pure and simple. As the Otago Daily Times puts it, " It amounts to an announcement that this vigorous and eminently promising country is already under the heel of protection ; that its population of 500,000 souls are being heavily taxed, not for the public needs, but for the profit of a few individuals ; and that this vile system has gained such a hold that we cannot shake it off, but must continue to submit to it, however ruinous its results may be. The Colonial Treasurer tells us that however large the surplus of revenue may be, however unnecessary the taxation, no diminution of the Customs duties, except those on tea and sugar, is admissible, beoause the Customs duties are protective duties and not revenue duties. The property tax may be dispensed with, but not the Customs duties. If the surplus revenue should become so great that the remission of the whole property tax and stamp tax and beer tax still leaves a balance, then, as we understand the Treasurer, it will be necessary to devise some new methods of expenditure in order to get rid of that balance. But in no case must the Customs tariff be touched, lest the vested interests which have grown up under the protective duties should be interfered with." The present position was not unforeseen nor unanticipated. When the Customs duties were increased, professedly

for revenue purposes, we, in common with other Free Trade journals, pointed out that the distinction would be soon lost^ and that a professedly revenue tax would be regarded as a protective impost. Some one. starts a new .industry, encouraged thereto by the high Customs tariff artificially increasing the price of' the article he makes.. When it is proposod to reduce the duty he talks, about " vested interest*," and straitway weak- i kneed politicians collapse. There are, we are told, just four woollen factories and three jam factories in the i colony. To keep these establishments going the people of New Zealand have to pay some, tens of thousands of pounds every year. The limes suggests, with telling. irony, that these establishments should be shut up, and the proprietors pensioned by the colony, for in that way there would be an enormous saving. But, a few weeks later, Major Atkinson went further with his Protective tendencies. ! Mr Levestam called attention to the fact that, to avoid the payment of duty, a certain Tasmanian firm imported fruit simply boiled, and made it into jam. The Colonial Treasurer virtually promised to put a stop to that sort of thing. We must eat fruit grown and preI served in New Zealand, however indifferently got up it is— and some of it is simply Yilo— whether we like it or not. As the $}imarw Herald puts it, "What Mr Levastam wants is that the people of New Zealand shall be compelled to eat bad and dear jam, or else pay an exorbitant price for jam of a better quality, in order to enrich a few fruit-growers in Nelson, who are too lazy and unenterprising to do business On business principles." When the duty on jam was increased last year Major Atkinson protested against it being considered a Protective measure ; the increase was, he said, proposed for revenue purposes. Little more than a year afterwards he treats the duty as one put on for strictly Protective purposes, lhat is the way Parliament is befooled into being made the tool of a ring of Protectionists.