CURIOUS INCIDENT.—PROTECTIONISM, &c.

New Zealand Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1911, 2 March 1870, Page 6

CURIOUS INCIDENT.—PROTECTIONISM, &c.

To the Editor of the Kebai.d. Sib, —Although I have concluded from pretty good evidence that the recent attempt to revive Protectionism ia this new country, has received its fatal nip, yet, peradventure, another rrord or two upon that decisively tattled quest isn may not bo supererogatory, even if for the sake only of reminiscence Since my opponent paper inserted, in the Hekat.o of the 17th in<(:i:it, a somewhat curious incident related thereto occurred. A talkative individual whs liken nbai'k nil stMiding by that same paper, and he spullled some thousand words which, I judged, were without so much as a thimbleful of sense. Melbourne and Sydney " duties," <ve., Ac. -Allowing him to exhaust himself, when he had shot, hi* bo : t, I said, " Now, friend, allow me for a minute ; thou art tol:illy ignorant even of the very rudiments of the problem. Firstly, Protectionism never contemplated revenue ; and, except occasionally, incidentally, ami in small ! proportion, never yielded any revenue; J it was. and is, simply and only to divert trade from you to me; or, if you deal ■with John, no t:i\ ; but if you deal with Jonathan, a high tax; soy.'U will of course, and in course denl with John, not. wishing constantly to pay away an extra 11s a week, merely i'.ir a theoretic , seruple, and without having or seeing anything at all to show for it, will ask no questions for conscience, or else convenience s-.i'ko, ir.id will be quite ready to say you ea:iiu>t be bothered with the polities of the question; ami so, accordingly, John monopolized trade, the pulilie " pay through the nose," mid (loerrihuent yet* nothing. That-, stripped of some of its crafty disguises, an 1 that alone, is protectionism. And thi* miows the thing foreign to the vi-ry idea of government. Secondly, Ton say, in a young country a producer must, liaru tuiiiF protect ion, so that he can get 12s fiir a 7s article, else how in a "youiisx country" can he establish himself and his trade? Xow, I presume, you can not see that, this is the most damning reason against tariff protectionism " in a young country" of all that have ever been advanced ; for now, "in a new ciaiuti-y." can pliin, people, pay the extra 5s more than the intrinsic-value of the article or above the regular market price. Where is that large extra money to come from, "io a young country?" This is a question you quite forgot, to think of. Again, don't you see t hut your unnatural artificial theory contemplates only the interest of the 13 individuals (the producers), whereas the doctrine of unineiMling with trade, or free wholesome competition, contemplates the interest of the thirteen millions (the consumers)? You must noiv see you have accidentally become a mos f . wretched theorist. Surely you will now very cordially say ' Goodbye !" He did.

Apropos, I have just seen an extract, from a Melbourne Imitator journal, in which we are exultingly told that the revenue of Victoria has lately increased. Good, and pleasing! But it is the very reverse of surprising news. To us, here, it is only a confirmation of confident anticipation. Melbourne is decidedly go-ahead; so is California. But, the fine financial report is adduced by that liuifitor (the very amiable call it the Leader), expressly to show forth the opinion that the modicum of protectionism which obtains at that great port and emporium of Vicioria colony, should be solely credited with the whole amount of that increase in revenue. He should know that in spi'e of, and because of, are two different phrases: and that they unmistakably indicate two different states of tilings. Clearly, Victoria speeds, spite of the small action of the feeble obstructive " break" which their tiny protectionism interposes. Again, that journal quietly ignores the indisputable familiar fact that it is no novelty for one party in a deal to get money by injustice. But, perhaps he never saw the alleged fact exemplified !

However, as lately mentioned elsewhere, I see no connection bet ween prizes or premiums for any particular productions, and tariff protectionism. Not any the least. It may now be added, it would seem indeed, from the competition, that the two principles or plans are essentially and wholly different. Somehow I have ever thought well of prizes, races, matches competition, emulation. But, we observe, there is often a confounding of things which differ.—l am. &c., W. E. Sadler.