THE DEBATE OF THE TARIFF.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume x, Issue 1957, 16 June 1888, Page 2

THE DEBATE OF THE TARIFF.

The debate on the tariff and on Mr. JBeetham's amendment has shown that those who predicted that the outcome was a foregone conclusion, have been amply justified by the result. It has been argued that those who object to the tariff proposals should formulate some other more acceptable proposals. It is no part of the duty of an Opposition to formulate a rival policy. As a matter of fact, protectionists and freetraders are equally agreed that more revenue may have to be raised through the Customs. freetraders, however, feel bound to oppose the addition of further protective duties, especially those proposed, on goods which have already shown that they need no protection. For instance, on such articles as blankets and woollens, of which there were exported £17,000 worth of New Zealand make last year; on butter, soap, cheese, bacon, grain, drain pipes, carts and drays, potted meats, leather, woollen rugs, sulphur, salt pork, salt beef, candles, etc., Many who are by no means rabid freetraders object to the Government offering bribes of larger profits in tbeir businesses to manufacturers and all engaged in protected trades, merely in order thereby to secure more votes in Parliament. The community as a whole is to be taxed in order that special industries may be fostered. A compact body of men with direct interests at stake can easily combine to force special legislation which shall benefit their special trades and industries, and defeat the loose and unorganised body of taxpayers, whose pockets are to suffer in order that these industries may flourish. The defeat of the freetraders has been so far easily accomplished. But they have still a havd battle to fight. Let them, at the least, endeavor to have the tariff purged of such mock protection as the duties on butter, cheese, grain, preserved meat, and the like, which New Zealand exports yearly in large quantities. New Zealand farmers complain bitterly of the protective tariff on such articles in Victoria and New South Wales, and have nothing to fear from outside competition in such goods. They have not yet been reduced by protection to the pitiable position of the Victorian farmer or the German beet-grower or sugarmaker to demand an export bounty on their wheat or beet sugar, or on wool and butter. It may be as well for them to establish the fact that tbey as exporters have no desire to offer inducements to those who now f reely admit New Zealand goods, to eWe their ports against them, or levy a heavy import tax on them. The farmers send their goods freely away, and only ask that those things which are returned to this colony in exchange for New Zealand exports shall find equally free admission. That is now denied them. But they would not have it go forth to the world that they ask free admission elsewhere for their surplus butter, cheese, meat, aud grain, but refuse to grant such free admission to others whomitmey

suit to send some of their surplus of such articles to "New Zealand for a market. They neither need, such sham protection nor desire it.