THE TARIFF.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17290, 4 October 1916, Page 5

THE TARIFF.

CONTROVERSY RESUMED. INTERESTING EXCHANGE OF OPINIONS. 10 Mas EDITOR. Sir,— Replying to '•Anti-Tariff's 3 ' letter, which appeared in your issue of September 11, I have been told that sertain classes of labour in Japan cmployed in the wickcrwork industry are paid about 2s per week, but cannot say if.it is correct. Eveu in freetrade England, however, before, the war, women thainmakers wero reported to be earning only 10s a week of sixty hours, .ind that at piecework, too. A cominission that inquired into this case awarded them, if I remember rightly, 14s a week and reduced the hours to fifty-six. It would be interesting to know what your correspondent thinks of this wage in the wealthiest country in'the world, in this the twentieth century'; also, would he attribute this and the fifteen millions of England who, before the war, were at or only one rccree above starvation point, to tire oeneficence of freetrade? If we grant him.that protective duties-are the terrible curse he pictures, could they anywhere do worse than this:-' If treetrade has nothing to do with it, what has to do with it? If " Anti-Tanft would honestly face this aspect of the question, instead of wasting time m boasting about " strangle holds and knock-out blows," we might make some progress.towards a solution of the problem wo are debating.' • I have no doubt the farmers would cladly purchase Japanese ploughs il they, could be supplied of -qual quality at- a reduction of 75 per cent, and as "Anti-Tariff" proposed to pension the local plough makers, myself, no doubt, included, we need not pursue the point. On behalf of the plough itoakers I accept his offer, conditional on the pension being equivalent to present earnings. That would be only fair. "When, however, 1 have to explain to the farmer that an important part of "Anti-Tariff's ''pan is to abolish all taxation save that upon laud values." ("Progress and Poverty, book 8. chapter 2), he is certain to prefer the expensive plough to AntiTariff's " patent panacea. Moreover. I have this point to call your, correspondent's attention to ; 'Such a substantial reduction in the price of agricultural implements would clearlv add farther to the value of the land .(see -'Progress and Poverty, book 4 chapter 3), and would not beueiit the farmer as such but the landowner, by increasing his rent, and would consequently make everything worse tor tne workers. ~.,,, , (< v In. saving, as I did, that "No one had said.that local industries could not carry on without being bolstered up by protective tariffs," I meant, of course, as the following words made clear, further increases in the tariff. U e have quite a considerable amount of protection already. , ~ "Anti-Tariff" says he would retain the poll tax on Asiatics because importations, of aliens does not call tor the export of aliens. Your correspondent is, after all, only a half-hearted * reetradcr; nothing lite so thoroughgoing as Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill or Henry George. These great ineu wanted freetrade all round, labour included. , , . . For an accountant who plumes himself ou his costing and commercial principles, it seems to me he overlooks manv important points. If Mr Nightingale's extra special men could build a house in one-half the time required by the same number of average men, Mr'Nightingale would have to pay them twice the average man's wages, so that Mr Nightingale's customer does not get cheaper goods. "Anti-Tariff" now submits au amended scheme of costing American and English boots. I am glad I have taught him something, but he would ho wise to consult another accountant and try again. His second result is almost as ridiculous as his first.

I ask "Anti-Tariff" to point out

where I have ever claimed that protection has been the only means adopted by Germany and America to build up the industries. Your correspondent gives as "his explanation of Germany s success her superior scientific training and her army of investigators. I propound this problem for your correspon-dent:—-If Germany so strikingly succeeded industrially and commercially because of her thorough grip of all scientific and practical knowledge, did she adopt protection for her industries by her "ignorance and apathy?' None of the freetrade correspondents have so far dealt with this aspect of this particular questiou. Germany and America, both highly educated, with great advantages in general and technical education in scientific knowledge and in the and energy of their people, have in a comparatively short time built up enormous industries. Could< such wonderful intellectuality possibly go hand in hand with ignorant apathy regarding the economic bearing of protective duties on industrial development? Your correspondent's argument amounts to this: Unparalleled wisdom in one direction in these two great nations goes hand in hand with doddling idiocy in another. I deny categorically that protection will kill experts. Under a judicious arrangement of duties many local industries that are languishing could be revived and new ones started and the population of the Dominion thereby considerably increased without permanently increasing prices. Let me givo two instances of successful local industries firmly established under a moderate tariff, both now selling goods at or loss than imported prices. First, roll-top desks up till somo ten years ago were all imported, the price being about £'B 12s. A duty of 25 per cent was imposed. The .local mak,ei'S r under the prospect of a secure market and a steady demand, installed "up-to-date machinery and modern methods." The price is now £8 12s 9d, and none are imported, the wages paid on this work being now 13s a day. Second, kitchen ranges some thirtyfivo years ago were largely imported. A duty of 20 per cent bad the effect of stimulating the local makers to renewed efforts, with the result that the price has dropped for the commoner sorts from £7 to £8 10s thirty-five years ago to £4 at the present time for the same size; and none are imported. If my information on these two items is correct, then I claim as a result that more people have been usefully employed in New Zealand as a result of the duties, and better and cheaper ranges have been produced. Rolltop desks have been obtainable at the same price. What more could any reasonable freetrader ask for?

These are only samples of hundreds, if not thousands, of other things that we could make in New Zealand for ourselves both better and cheaper than imported goods. ' ; Anti-Tariff " states that her fiscal policy gave England command of the sea, meaning, I suppose, that command of the sea followed the establishment of freetrade. Lit me ,e:nind him that the battle of Trafalgar, which gave Britain command of the sea, was fought in 1805; the Corn Laws wero repealed in 1849.

No. one can now say what the state of the Empire would now have been had Britain twenty-fire or thirty years ago gone in for more scientific research with better teclinic.nl and general education for her people, coupled with judicious preferential protective duties for tho Empire. But it is pretty safe to assert that the end of the war will see the end of freetrade in Britain and the establishment of preferential tariffs throughout the Empire, so that more of our own peoplo . will be retained within the Empire to defend in the future the liberties of the world.—l am, etc., J. KEIR. CONCERNING POPULATION AND "DUMPING.' 5 TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I see that Mr Ronald S. Badger has been instructed by the Board of Industries to'enlighten us as to the objects sought to be accomplished by tho board. Object number I is " to prepare for a large increaso of population " —n most worthy object. Object number 2 is " to provide constant employment for tho people by making such provision as may be necessary to piotcct the present standard of living against the products of people living on a. much lower standard, and also to protect tho industries against the dumping—(good old " dumping ")—of surplus products of other countries, 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 commnnity who may temporarily profit by such importations." Now. in regard to object number 1I would like Mr Badger or his protectionist employers to tell us where the large increase of population that they are so anxious to prepare for is to come from, and also the precise date of such expected increase. Is it to bo imported or do they expect that the boasted high standard of living in this country will bo responsible for an abnormal natural increase? Everything at present points to a. rather alarming decrease of population on account of the war. If the protectionists are relying upon immigration, can they reasonably expect a large influx of population when the economic conditions here are so unattractive? It is true that we have an extremely small population, but it is equally true that a great increase spread over the country will not take place so long as the land is fenced in and the people fenced out. Dear land in a young country like this,

together with famine prices of commodities and outrageous house rents, will not induce thinking people to como here. The right way "to prepare for a largo increase of population " is to settle the land question. As to object number 2, the words "by making such provision '' simply mean in plain English robbing the community, while the statement about protecting the industries against dumping by other countries and depriving our fellow citizens of a living is proved to ho all moonshine by the example of New South Wales, whose industries were established and flourished under freetrade. If other countries would bo good enough to continuously dump some of their surplus products into my backyard I would not worry about any "legitimate source of living." Why should I treat such products like vermin?—l am, etc., NO TARIFFS.