THE TARIFF DISCUSSION

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17283, 26 September 1916, Page 5

THE TARIFF DISCUSSION

fIR NIGHTINGALE'S QUESTIONS

\We had'decided to close, this correspondence for a time to allow the preparation and publication of an impartial review of letters to date: but points have arisen concerning certain questions submitted at a meeting of the BoaTd of Industries last week, *.nd in fairness we are bound to findi space tor the- letters that follow this note.—Ed. ''L.T.'*) . TO THE IDITOB. Sir,—ln reply to Mr C. H. Nightingale's query in your issue of Saturday last, I am instructed by the New Zealand Board of Industries to say that it will not allow.the present to be used for tho purpose of enabling Mr Nightingale, "No Tax" and others to ventilate what might bo described as single tax theories- As, therefore, this is our first and only reply to their recent voluminous correspondence, may I request that it appears in extenso? Tho objects sought to be accomplish.©d" by the New Zealand Board of luidustrios are:—

' 1. To prepare for a large increase of . population. 2. To provide constant employment .jfor the people by making s'uch provision as may bo necessary to protect the present standard of living against the products of people living on a much lower standard, and also to protect the industries against the dumping of the, surplus products of .other coun'tries, which, if admitted into New Zealand, would deprive many of our fellow citizens of their legitimate source of living for the benefit of another section of the community who may temporarily profit by such importations.. .3. Secure .and maintain the highest possible degree of efficiency which the united efforts of capital and labour ■may be able to secure. So long as wo have to meet honest criticism from responsible citizens, no time or trouble will bo considered too preat in our endeavour to meet any Vonest conviction that tho proposals of ihe board are not in the best interest of the nation. I will now endeavour to .answer Mr Nightingale's questions, but hereafter . my board will take no further notice of any of his remarks by newspaper correspondence, as there will be ample. opportunity for discussion either through working committees or on the public platform, but I can assure Air Nightingale that unless ho restricts himself to a criticism of' our proposals little or no attention will be paid to his opinions on matters which were quite correctly ruled by his Worship the Mayor as irrelevant to tho business of the meeting. Question —Why should shop assistants and clerical workers employed outr side protected industries be taxed in order to provide employment for vvork- . ers in protected factories? Answer—(a). Because these shop as- , sistants participate- in the standard of living which we seek to maintain, and which they with others now enjoy, (b) That their participation in that standard is demonstrated by the fact that if they were employed in freetrade England on the' same job .as they i are employed in New. Zealand, and in the sanie grade' of shop, their salary would be abcrat half their present wage.

Mr Nightingale has no authority to speak for shop assistants, and beforo including the clerical workers let him make inquiries (if he does not already know) what his job would be worth in a town in England, same size as Christehurch. We can supply the information should ho desire it.

The question dealing with the boot trade is very easily dealt with, and I am surprised at the ignorance of. the questioner, or perhaps his desire to misrepresent facts by deliberately omitting to tell the truth completely. The following figures will ' serve to prove how unfortunate—from the viewpoint of Mr ar'&Mrnent—is the ©sample from the boot trade he quotes:— " An average women's boot, say, at 12s, -English invoice cosr, would under the old tariff pay 3s duty, while un-

dor tho present tariff it would only b'e subject to 2s lid, or a decrease of 10£d per pair; a pair of average quality men's boots, say, IGs English cost, would now pay 3s 3£d as against 4s under tho old tariff—a saving of Sid per pair. Tho two increases in duty quoted by Mr Nightingale only affect cheap shoddy goods—the sort I venture to think Mr Nightingale would not expect his own family to wear —the kind that only represent a waste of people's money, and tho Government rightly took steps to restrict their importation. It is perfectly true that in 1901 there wero 2696 persons employed in the boot industry and only 2072 in 1911, but no one should know better than Mr Nightingale (being an engineering clerk) that this is entirely due to tho introduction of highly specialised la-bour-saving machinery. He forgot to mention that these 2072 workers received over £SOOO more wages than the total paid to the larger number in 1901. Tho value of- the raw materials used by the larger number in .1901 was £273,325, and the vahle of the raw material used by the smaller number ton years later was £334,830, and the created value for the country by the joint operation of labour and capital was £529,254, as tho result of 2696 workers, as against a created value of £619,873 by 2072 workers, and to enable/ this to bo accomplished tho sum of £227.057 was invested in land, plant and buildings. Further, if all the boots consumed in this country wero made in the country, and all were made in. one district, tho boot and shoo industry alone would account for a population equal to tho joint population of Timaru and Ashburton. I Mr Nightingale's reference to Mr Frostick's figures regarding the labour conditions of freetradc England by reading quotations from speeches made in' Melbourne by Mr Trbnwith and others in 1893, dealing with the distress in Melbourne as a set-off, as he says, against the figures mado by Mr Frostick, renders Mr Nightingale unworthy of the . slightest public notice. Ho either does not know his facts, or elects to delibeiately mislead. Mr Nightingale must have known of the great financial disaster in Australia which occurred in 1892, when every bank in the country (save five) closed their doors, and we got qmte used to the newsboys'' cry " 'Notker Orstralian bank smash." Thousands of primary producers were ruined; • thousands of employers were ruined, or had to restrict "their operations because the necessary capital was no longer available, and the distress and poverty among the oeople for a time was frightful. Why?" Simply because the people ceased to be employed, and this arstress had nothing to do with cither fveetrade or protection—simply unemployment, from a known cause, just as Mr Nightingale is prepared to bring about unemployment of an important industry in order that, whilst retaining his own high salary, he seeks to have his wants supplied from Japan, where he admits adult labour can be secured fur 7s 9d per weo.c. This, in the mind of mv committee, is not a brilliant example of true citizenship.— I am, etc., KONALI> S. BADGER, Secretary New Zealand Board of i Industries. September 25.

TO THE KDIIOR. Sir.—Replying to your two correspondents of tliis morning, H.J. and C. H. Nightingale, it is a pity they could not oersuade their anonymous friends. "Anti-Tariff" and " No Tariff." to accept my challenge to debate die question unconditionally, then they would have had .full opportunity to' put their conundrums and to administer " a knock-cut blow " to at least ono supporter of the Industries Board movement. Failing this, 1 would suggest to your correspondents that, as it is an important question, in which they are btrongly interested, they enlarge their nublic-spiritedness and" take a hall and hold a meeting of their own so that they may expound to the public the -whole gospel of free trade and single tax. In case Mr C. H. Nightingale should suppose his questions are unanswerable, I beg to submit the following as my own solution of his conundrums—--1 speak only for myself. T will take B first. "Is it true that the total hands employed in New Zealand boot factories was in the year 1900 2696 and in 1910 2072, and that two increases in the tariff on boots had baleen place during those ten years?" ' Answer.—lt is quite true, and, as the output of boots had, according to last census, increased during the ten years from £529,254 to £619,873, it proves conclusively that the manufacturers have during that time been installing ' - up-to-date machinery and modern methods," as demanded by his coadjutant, "No Tariff." also that as a result we may look forward tocheape: and better boots of docal manufacture in the future. ••A" ••Why should shop assistants and clerical workers (employed outside piotected industries) be taxed in order to try and find employment for workers in protected factories?" Answer. —A majority of people of this country, in their wisdom, through their representatives (duly elected on a universal adult :.uffrage) in Parliament assembled have decided to foster local industries, amongst others the boot manufacturing industry, with the view, first, to increase the population of ,-tho Dominion; secondly, eventually to supply themselves with boots and many other commodities cheaper and of better quality; and, thirdly, to ensure a permanent and constant supply of these and other essential articles irrespective of wars and revolutions in other countries or other interruptions nf outside supply. One of the most effective methods of securing the above ends hitherto discovered by two of the

most highly enlightened and scientific nations of the world, Germany and America, has been the imposing of duties on imports; this method our Parliament has adopted. Tho increase of prices is not a permanent burden on shop assistants and clerical workers or any other class in the community, as we are all in this country wholly dependent upon tho export of primary products of the land, the increased cost, of living due to the duties on boots and many other things, being eventually passed on from one employer or manufacturer or producer or worker to another, until it finally rests on the land, reducing the value of lent of same, becoming, in fact, a tax on land, such as your correspondent has been so eloquently advocating in your columns for.many years past. In regard to the last paragraph, no one • said Mr Nightingale's quotations regarding the State of'Victoria in 1893 were false. The point. that amused the meeting was that Mr Nightingale should quoxe from 1893 (without mentioning the year), when he could, had ha been anxious to get at the real truth, have quoted from 1915.—1 am, etc.,

J. KEIB

TO . THX EDITOB. Sir, —Mr C. H. Nightingale is aggrieved because tho following q'uostions were not answered at a meeting held in relation to tho proposed " Board of Industries," at which addresses were given by citizens in order to endeavour to arrive at some constructive .policy for the betterment of the community as a whole. C.H.N, asks—(a) " Why should shop assistants and clerical workers (employed outside of protected industries) be taxed in order to try and find employment for workers in protected factories?" The answer to this was so obvious that whatever the reason given for not answering, to have answered it would simply have been a waste of tinjo, as G.H.N., if he did not know, would have been the only one present interested. If C.H.N, 'does not know that by tho increase of our industries all parties, whether directly or indirectly concerned with the industries, must profit, let him compare his own position and emolument with an exactly similar position and emolument in Great Britain, and after having done this he might compare his present position and emolument with what it could be if the establishment with which he is connected was making the same 6hare of the over one million value of imports coming in without duty (any of which the .establishment is equipped for making), as the share it is making of another of its products which has a protective duty". The other question he desired an answer to was—(b) ''ls it true that the total hands employed in New Zealand boot factories was in 1900 2696 and in 1910 2072?" The answer to this is, it is not true. If C.H.N, has not already noticed it he should look at the footnote in 1900 Statistics, and he will see that even the Government Statistician does not know what the correct figures are, but that he states for comparison they aro not correct with previous years, and he refrains from using them as comparisons for subsequent years. By the way, statistics do show that boot manufacturing machinery installed over that period increased from 49,000 to 90,000; this is probably duo to the alteration to tariff C.H.N, referred to', and I think not a bad result; and one not possible or likely without protection. C.H.N, now asks as to quotations made twan.ty-three years ago, " if not still true, at what rate per annum does truth become false?" It would bo interesting to know (1) why C.H.N, did not, volunteer the information that his quotations.we.ro twentythree years old and not wait to have it dragged from him; also (2) why did he select quotations from a tariff inquiry commission twenty-three years old when ho could have used a. commission held in 1914? (3) If C.H.N, did not know that any such or sinnlar conditions referred to m quotations could not prevail under present-day conditions, then he must surely have been the only one in the hall. In any ease, was it reasonable ior C.H.N, to expect that a body of men would at 10 p.m. sit and listen to statements made twenty-three years ago itl refutation—or as a set-off, as he calls it—of the latest figures and circumstances, especially when it is well known to nil men of mature years that at the period and locality selected by C.H.N. there was extraordinary distress caused by a burst of a land boom, when banks stopped payment and hitherto wealthy people were brought to bankruptcy? Does C.H.N, know there is n war in Europe, and cannot he realise that ns a result conditions have been revealed as to warrant most men subjecting their previous views to revision?—l am. etc., COSMO.