Hawke's Bay Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 27, 1885. PUBLIC OPINION ON THE TARIFF.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7200, 27 June 1885, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 27, 1885. PUBLIC OPINION ON THE TARIFF.

Nevee before have the proposals of any Ministry been so universally condemned as have been the increases in the Customs tariff proposed by Sir Julius Yogel. It cercainly cannot be said that the Press has not done its duty in this matter, for from one end of the country to the other the disingenuous attempt of Sir Julius to hide the real effect of hia proposals has been exposed, and the tariff condemned. So far as we can find from a diligent perusal of our many exchanges only two papers in the colony endorse the Statement — one is the Wanganui Herald, which is chiefly owned and controlled by Mr Ballanoe, and the other is the Dunedin Herald, which is piloted by Mr Bracken, an out-and-out Protectionist. The Lyttelton Times, which. 13 nothing if not consistent, and which has for several years pasfc championed Protectionist views, adopts a strictly non-committal line, and apparently regards the proposals of' the Treasurer as altogether too barefaced to warrant support. The other Ministerial organs boldly break through all party considerations, and unequivocally condemn the proposed tariff; The P<«tf says : "When we come to enquire into the reasons for which most of these new duties are imposed, we find ample proof that they are not so much for revenue purposes as to put increased profits, at the expense of the consumers, into the pockets of a few manufacturers who are already doing- well and able to quite hold their own against importers. That this is the case in the soft goods trade is pretty well shown by a letter in another column from Mr Kirkcaldie. The new duty on these goods simply means increased profits to the Mosgiel and other woollen manufacturers. The farmers are to pay an extra shilling a cwt. for barbed wire fencing in order to force them to buy from the Oamaru and Timaru manufacturers, who are permitted to import their materials free. The public are to pay 2s a ton on coal for the benefit of the shareholders in the varioua coal companies ; and so the whole thing is arranged." The New Zealand Times, which may be regarded aa Major Atkinson's organ, while seemingly inclined to favor a change in the direction of Protection, condemns the proposed tariff on the ground that it will fall more particularly on the poorer classes, and points out some manifest absurdities. The Evening Press thus concludes a strongly written article :—" We hope to see a powerful revolt of public feeling against a policy of which the . people had no warniner.

which is dead against the promises and professions on the faith of which the Ministry took office ; and which is manifestly opposed to the welfare of the public, both as a community and as an aggregation of men, women, and ohildren with bellies to fill and backs, to clothe and homes to maintain in decent comfort and prosperity." The Auckland Herald says :— •«• Especially will the increased duty on tea be felt as a hardship by the working classes. It was in consideration of them that the charge of sixpence a pound was reduced to fourpence during the time of Sir George Grey's Ministry, of which the present' Premier was a member. It cannot fail to appear to the working classes a thing unaccountable that a Cabinet with a Radical chief at its head should have attempted to impose so heavy a burden on a staple article of diet." The Auokland Star, though it has strong leanings to Protection, cannot " swallow " the tariff proposals, and sayu :— "The more the tariff is examined the less it is liked, although many of the alterations are triflingly insignificant, others are prohibitively protective, and evidently submitted with a view to establishing dangerous monopolies in industries that are already established. This is the most obnoxious development of ultra-protection, and confirms the assertion of Free Traders that so socn as industries developed by tariff aids gather strength" they use it to abuse their privilege by making articles which they manufacture still dearer to consumers, and by establishing for themselves a monopoly at extravagant prices. The boot and shoe industry, for example, is already flourishing, and is certainly not entitled to any further help than it has hitherto received from the tariff. What, then, is the objeot of the preposterously heavy additions to the duties on boots and shoes, unless to make these indispensable artioles of clothing dearer than they are to the masses of the people P The duty of 20 per cent, on blankets, while other classes of soft goods are admitted at 17£ per cent., is .clearly meant as a bonus to some company which is now manufacturing blankets; These duties will add little or nothing to the revenue, but they will rob the people insidiously of a very large sum of money every year paid in excessive profits to a few persons engaged in the manufacture. The general clause imposing a duty of 10 per cent, on all unspecified articles is a clumsy and dangerous provision. Importers will be astounded from time to time-by the discovery that goods which have hitherto been exempt from taxation are liable to a ruinous duty levied surreptitiously. Above all things a tax ought to be clear and explicit.. The' articles taxable should be plainly set out. and all the rest go free. To impose a tax of. 10 per cent; .in a general slapdash : sort of way without specifying the articles upon which the tax 'ia 'levied may be a convenient expedient for a

Treasurer who cares for nothing but to swell the revenue, but it is an unpardonable violation of sound economic and commercial principles." The Otago Daily Times, a strong Ministerialist journal, is equally outspoken. Oar Dunedin contemporary says : — " Our fears that Sir Julius Yogel would Beck to doctor the depression with Protection are coming up true. The old tariff was was far more protective than desirable, but the new tariff carries us a good step further towards Protection. It marks an appreciable and distinct advance towards Protection, and is calculated to do a greab deal of harm to the colony, td say nothing of the policy to which it commits us in the future. It will be the duty of every Free Trader in the House to oppose it tooth and nail, co3t what that opposition may. There can be no doubt that the most important principle before the House or country, since abolition, is at stake ... . The truth is that not a tenth of the population is even temporarily benefited by Protection, and that ultimately no one is benefited. In spite of the main object of the tariff being to raise revenue, we unhesitatingly assert it ia so framed as to, have the necessary result of reducing the revenue, and in some cases entirely stopping it." The Dunedin Star says :— " There is nothing either 'fair or just' in giving local manufacturers a monopoly enabling them to obtain high prices for articles irrespective of quality as compared with imported ones. In re6peot to the logic of taxation, we either do not understand what the Treasurer means or the logic is decidedly bad which supports an increase of duties on agricultural products — butter, cheese, bacon. &c, articles which locally produced defy competition, and of which the imports are insignificant. , . We hope the working classes will appreciate the tender mercies of the Ministry." The Timaru Herald, in a well- written article, has the following on the Statement :— ]'It is impossible to dispute its ability, if: that be ability which can clothe in smooth, well-rounded English the most glariDgly unsound political economy, and pass it off with an air as if the author were merely enunciating the most wellworn axioms, on the truth of which everyone is agreed. Specious and astute as ia the Statement, however, we think the Colonial Treasurer has a little overshot the mark. He has presumed rather too much on the supposed ignorance and credulity of the House and of the public. The speech is painfully disingenuous. It is clearly apparent at times that even the author is laughing in his sleeve at his own audacity, and is wondering in his own mind whether his hearers will be simple enough to swallow some of his statements. . . . Truly the agricultural community — which was never in a more depressed condition— and all professional men, traders, laborers and persons with fixed incomes have much to be thankful for when they turn their attention to the Government that was to make this colony progress 'by leaps and bounds.' All the leaping| and bounding it has done hitherto^ has been in the direction of increased taxation. The Colonial Treasurer, however, thinks

there must be a considerable amount of 'give and take' among the various classes of , the community. He, of course, means that the manufacturer and coal mine proprietors are to do all the taking, and the rest of the colouy are to content themselves with the giving." We, might gire many other extracts, but the above are sufficient to show the general drift of Press comments. Manufacturers and others ha re also come to the front and flatly avowed that they do not want the increased Protection which Sir Julius offers them. Telegrams have been already published in our columns from the manager of the Mosgiel Woollen Factory, several firms of ironfounders.andleading boot-making firms, stating that they are quite prepared to compete with imported goods undec the present tariff, and that they want no increases, so that even from an ultra-Protectionist standpoint the new j duties cannot be defended. We will conclude with an extract from a letter of Mr John Kirkcaldie, of "Wellington, published in the Post, and referred to above, which conclusively ehowa to what a great extent colonial manufacturers of drapers' goods are protected by freight, charges, and the old duties. He eaye :— " Blankets cost to import from 32| to 60 per cent. ; flannels, shirtings, tweeds, coat'ngg, 25 to 30 per cent. ; jersey jackets and hosiery, 25 to 30 per oent. ; appare'., best known as ready-made clothing, 25 to 30 per cent. ; wheeling and fingering yarn, 25 to 30 per cent." • "