Hawke's Bay Herald. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1886.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7608, 3 December 1886, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1886.

I SIR JULIUS YOGEL ON PROTECTION. Wk have read some very weak addresses in favor of Protection, Imt we must confess that, when the position of the speaker is considered, that delivered by Sir Julius Yogel at Dimedin last week bears oft" the palm for loose statement and fallacious argument. When the telegraphic summary of the address reached Napier we concluded that in- condensing it the reporter had made Sir Julius Yogel talk what his special organ, the Post, frankly describes as "a good deal of nonsense." But, after reading the full reports of the address published in the Dunedin papers, we are constrained to admit that we did the reporter an injustice, for the telegrapic summary conveyed the meaning of Sir Julius as accurately as was possible in small compass, and the Post's description applies to the full address quite as much as to the summary at which it was directed. Sir Julius set out by repealing the hundred-times exploded fallacy about raising revenne by Customs duties in such a way as to protect local industries. The impossibility of accomplishing such a dual result needs no elaboiate demonstration. If Customs duties are to meet the aims of the Protectionists they must largely restrict, if they do not altogether prohibit, the introduction of foreign goods on which the duties are levied. The Protectionist, indeed, desires prohibition pureandsimple, tinder the guise of a Customs tariff. But it must be evident to the meanest capacity ■ — and Sir Julius Yogel cannot be so classed— that if the duties are so high as to be Protective, the imports must fall, and with the imports the duties collected 1 must fall. One is a direct and necessary result of the other, and cannot be avoided. Therefore a Protective tariff cannot be a revenue tariff. That Sir Julius Yogel ' tails to see the distinction between the '. two we cannot believe, and if so he, must > have been aware that he was talking " a j great deal of nonsense." But he pleased his audience. Perhaps, also, he was influenced by the consideration that a Protective tariff must take some time to accomplish its object, and that for a year or two it might result in an increase of 1 revenue, until matters adjusted themselves. As Sir Julius cannot reasonably , hope to be permitted to make financial i experiments Jat the cost of New Zealand ! for more than a year or two, he would > reap the benefit of a temporary eni largement of the revenue, and as for his successors — well, they can be left to grapple with the ultimate difficulty. " After me the deluge." t But Sir Julius' was even more absurd - when he ventured out of the beaten track 1 of Protectionist ratiocination. He - claimed, as examples of Protection, cheap Press telegrams, free education, and the construction of railways by the State i j That we may not be accused of parodying his arguments we quote from a verbatim > report in the Otago Daily Times: — The Press, which is so strongly against Protection, is very largely favored in that direction. Press telegrams, for instance, ? are sent at the rate of 6d per 100 words, '. while the charge to a private individual i is Id a word, or if urgent 2d per word. j- This charge of Gd per 100 words is, I may I tell you, at a rate which does not pay the i operator. I would like to know whether 5 that is not Protection, Tho object may, it is true; be a worthy one, and move or s less universal ill its action ; but it is not i entirely universal. It benefits a large • section of the people, but it is an indirect benefit. So with newspaper postage. Only a penny, is charged for a large } newspaper, which if sent as a letter would i require 6d or Sd postage. We will now come to another point, which perhaps ' gives more universal benefit, but still not J quite universal — the assistance which we give to education. We give free education to the whole of the children in the j colony, and I admit that that will probably concern gths— 9-10ths if you like— • of tlie population. There is still, how- ■" ever, a tenth left, consisting of the bachelors and old maids, who do not get ) any benefit, Then take the roads. Roads are essential to the. settlement of the country, no donbt; but when we have j constructed roads there are very few tolls left in the country. ' Yet the roads were made at great cost, and no charge is r made for the use of tliem. On the contrary, means are found yearly for keeping them in repair. That is indirect protection for thosewho enjoy .jtheir use. Take f railways again., The railway rates are ' not sufficient to pay the working expenses and interest npon the cost. j For the purpose of argument, we will ) assume that Sir Julius stated facts. He did not do so with reference to Press tele--3 grams, for it is only during certain hours ' that the rate mentioned prevails, at other 1 hours various charges tip to 4s 2d per 100 words being made, so that the average is very much higher than was stated. But, assuming the charge to be, as stated, j whereon earth is tho Protection? If a, tax were pnt on the introduction of newspapers printed outsido the colony, that would be Protection, hut in what way L ' doe? cheapening intercolonial .telegrams protect the New Zealand newspapers? . Protection seeks to prevent imported articles competing with similar articles locally produced. Do cheap telegrams within New Zealand prevent English papers coining to the colony? If the Government supplied long cable messages at nominal rates to the Ifew Zealand Press, and so aided them in procuring English news, that might be called an iv- . direct mode ot Protection, but as a matter of fact, the Press contract ivith Baron Renter mid the cable companies on a. commercial basis, and tho Government lias nothing more to dp with cable news than to collect the money paid for it and to hand it over to the cable companies. Truly, in instancing cheap Press telegrams as " Protection " Sir Julius talked "a great deal of nonsense." Then, if there be one thing ' above all others essentially Free Trade in its operation it is free education, which ' seeks to put the poor on a level with the rich, and to place within the roach of every boy or girl the means of rising in the world. Then where is the "Pro. tection" in our railways ? It may or may not be true that the railways cannot bo profitably worked at the present or a lower tariff. We take leave to doubt that, but the point is immaterial. How does cheap railway carriage enable New Zealand manufacturers to compete with English competitors? The English-made goods are carried at precisely the same rates; but Piotection would fix a heavy tariff for foreign goods and a light one for New Zealand productions. Sir Julius must have felt that lie had taken a very , wild ilight indeed, for he endeavored ' to retrieve himself by saying, "I do not like the term Protection, because I do not think' it a logical or a national term. All ' Government is ' protection " This is a weak play npon words, Government certainly involves the protection of individuals and . property from the murderer or tho thief. But that is not the "Protection" of which he was professedly speaking, which has nothing to do with the safety of persons or property, but which rather seeks to legalise the robbery of the many for the benefit of tho few, W|ien he uttered the words we liavu quoted be lalkod wore tlian a "good deal" of nonsenso — lie don.lt out nonsense pure and simple, and endeavored to back it up by the weak subterfuge of playing upon the dual meaning of a word, The protection of tho life and liberty of tho subject has no more to do with the fisp.a} Protection of local manufactures than has tho personal protection o f sir Julius Vogol to do. with tho protecLofcopyrig. 1 :!".!^ 1 "^!" 0 ;; 110---tioiiH. One has no relation io J? °\.\ and to endeavor to justify one by Js&"' oilier is equal to justifying tho behp«tuin2i of Sir Julius by repealing the protection* of copyright. •' ' ' \ We do riot propose to follow Sir Julius through all his labyrinthine twistings and turnings. But we must quote just one more assertion. " The whole arguments

used by Free Traders depend, to my mind, upon one very important basis, and that is that itis of no consequence to a country which adopts Free Trade whether or not it loses or retains its population The Free Trader assumes that if there is no opening for a man at his legitimate occupation — ■ t Eie occupation he was brought up aj,, this, that, or the other — it is his dnly to find some other occupation, or, if lie cannot do so, that the community has no interest in him, and lie must be off and shift for himself." This is more than a strained construction to put oil the arguments of Free Traders— it is an absolute perversion. The Free Trader says nothing of the sort. What he says, is that labor should he employed in directly profitable channels or the State is a loser; that if a man consumes more than he produces ho is an unprofitable subject, and that to encourage him to devote his time to unprofitable labor is a suicidal policy on the part of the State. ■. Let us take an example. A hundred young men are setting out in life. The Free Trader points out where their labor can he profitably applied. He may say, in a new and comparatively unoccupied country, "Go on the land and make it produce what it is capable of producing. You can get full return for your money there, and the State as well as yourselves will gain by the development of production." But the Protectionist says, " No ; come and work in the foundry or adopt some similar occupation. It is true there is no opening for you, but we will by heavy Customs duties prevent the competition of foreigners, and raise the price of goods here, and that will find you work." The Free Trader replies, " No ; why should everyone in the country pay more for goods to keep you at work, while without I any such injurious fiscal policy you can find other occupations?" And that, Sir Julius declares, is tantamount to saying Free Traders care not whether a conntry loses or retains its population !