“SCIENTIFIC” TARIFFS

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17273, 14 September 1916, Page 4

“SCIENTIFIC” TARIFFS

VIEWS- OF CORRESPONDENTS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In reply to Air J. Koir, I have said nothing about tho “ socialism of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” Regarding the bonus system, this is only suggested as an expedient during the transition from protection to freotrade, with .a view to easing the minds of protectionists, who fear that without protection local industries would be ruined. The bonuses would nor. cost the country anything like as much as the protective tariffs. In addition to the gain co'the public resulting from the abolition of the profits duo to protection, there would bo a saving by reason of the decreased cost of production following tlio sweeping away of the duties. lam asked, “ How could tho small struggle!' at the beginning instal Up-to-date machinery and tlio latest improved methods?” Aly reply is that ho could do it much more easily under free trade than under protection. Why should tho community ho robbed by “protection” in order to enrich a class of interested manufacturers who batten on it and who, having greater influence than most other people, axe enabled to use it because it brings them personal profit while bringing loss to the community? . I ask these interested manufacturers whether this is their highest conception of patriotism? Aly replies to Mr Keir’s questions 1, 2 and 3 are as follows:—(1) America, Germany, Japan, Canada and South Africa have mistakenly adopted protection probably because other countries have done so for the purpose of fighting them. The people of those countries have been bamboozled by the protectionist manufacturers just as they have been in New Zealand. In America, Germany and Austria tho democracy is now rising up against the tariffs. Labour is everywhere becoming more opposed to protection; (2) New South Wales and Victoria compromised on the tariff question, A7ictoria losing her high tariff and accepting a low one. Protectionists in Victoria at the present day axe howling against tho low tariff, which they say is very nearly freetrade. There is a standing challenge to the Victorian protectionists to debate the subject of “Freetrado versus Protection” at Melbourne, bat they cannot be persuaded to accept it; (3) I believe in freetrado in labour as a general principle. but would not adopt it until the system of land tenure has been settled upon right lines. , I would support tho Arbitration Court in order to counteract the general downward tendency of wages, a tendency which is greater under protection than under freotrade. Tho latter would reduce the cost of living, and this in itself weald be equal to an all-round rise jn wages for the workers. I may add that I agree with “ Anti-Tariff’s ” remarks on tho question of tho importa-

tion of alien labour.—l am, etc., NO TARIFFS. TO THE EDITOR. . Sir,—Your correspondent “AntiTariff” says that if workmen in the United States are better paid for their labour than in tho United Kingdom the first reason is “ a higher standard of education in the States.” . . . . But bow can that be, when the British workman serves' an apprenticeship of five years in tho skilled trades, and the American but three, and as a matter of fact British workmen in

America- are as a rule equal cr superior to tho Americans tliey work beside? In 0110 of the great American Exhibitions; there was shown some work done by a firm in Massachusetts, which, being made in America, was an. American exhibit: but I was assured by a Britisher who was one of the prominent workmen there that no American person had anything to do with tho work from start to linisb. Smno of the great American inventions have been mailo by foreigners, such as the screw propeller for steamships, which was invented in America, bnfc the man was a Swede. *

Tho second reason given, “ Greater natural advantages and resources,” will help t.o account for Americans being better off, but it will not account for their labour being more eilicient, which he makes so strong a point of. That is accounted for by the security which protection affords, making it safe for manufacturers to go to all the expense necessary for machinery and organisation. “Anti-Tariff” complains that I did nor mention cheap .Japanese goods in the few lines sent the last time, but that omission' does not alter the fact that they seem likely to keep on coming here ,'n increasing quantities. If he moans to deny that a Jap at 2s a week could do much cheaper work than tho most skilful New Zealand artisan at Is (id an hour, then he had better learn something of the wondcrf.d skill tho Japanese possess. He has only to examine Japanese goods sold in this city, compare their cost with what they wtfald cost if made by New Zealanders, and think what such a neople can do if they choose to go lnit the boot and shoe business on a largo scale. I must agree with him that there is no tariff between tho different States in America, as I do not wish to strengthen my argument by fallacies of anv kind.-—I am, etc., E. E. O’U.