The New zealand Herald. SPECTEMUR AGENDO. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1872.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IX, Issue 2521, 23 February 1872, Page 2

The New zealand Herald. SPECTEMUR AGENDO. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1872.

We are not disposed to discuss n ith the Cross the abstract question of free trade versus protection, to which lie invites us, because tho point has been long since decided in favour of the former, and anything that might be written on it at the present day could not throw additional light on the subject. What we shall do, however, is to point out to our readers occasionally the mischievous effects of the protective tariff which, partly for revenue purposes and partly to " en- " courage local industries/' has beeu inflicted on this colony. In our article of .Friday, to wliicli exception is taken, we argued against protection on principle. Wo demonstrated, by a quotation from the leading .New York newspaper, that protection had ruined the foreign shipping trade of the United States ; and we left our readers to infer that, but for the shipping laws of that country, the Americans would also bo driven out of their own extensive coasting trade, which alone preserves the shadow of a mercantile marine.

Our point is thus established, that protection destroys the foreign shipping trade of any maritime country which adopts it; and wo cited tho policy of the present protectionist Government of Zealand to show that they, at least, hold a similar opinion, because they wore instrumental in repealing tho British navigation laws, so far as they applied to this colon}', and threw our coasting trade open to the competition of every foreign nation. In fact, Chinamen may come down with their junks and compete with our mosquito fleet for the coasting trade of Auckland. We instanced this fact as a triking example of protectionist inconsistency, and an illustration of how impossible it is to " protect local industry," and at the same time exteud foreign trade by means of forcing or subsidies. One or other interest must go to the wall. The American Government p.eforred sacrificing its foreign trade on the altar of protection ; the Kew Zealand Government offer up its coasting trade on the same altar.

But we argued on Friday that if protection, in the form of a hostile tariff, were a good thing for British communities divided by seas, it could not be a bad thing as between British communities separated by well-defined natural barriers, as in New Zealand. The Cross replies, in effect, that the exception proves the rule ; that New Zealand is an exception to the general rule, and that Auckland is anexception to the narrower New Zealand rule. The Australian colonies have separate colonial interests. " The interests of " New Zealand are one and indivisible " (says the Cross), so it may be said, " indeed, are the interests of Auckland "province; so it may be also said " are the interests of every private " individual ; but however individual " interests, however the interests of "a province might be benefited by " exclusive advantages, such interests, in the estimation of every one desir- " ous of the greatness of the colony, " must be subordinated to the general " good. Auckland might be benefited "by protection against Otago, but " Auckland would be so benefited at " the expense of Otago, and, as the " interests of Otago, equally with "those of Auckland, are under tho " paternal care of a legislature charged "with the advancement of the whole " commonweal, such sectional and " conflicting interests cannot bo tole"t rated to the injury of New Zealand. "Hinon is strength, and a house " divided against itself must inevitably " come to desolation."

Now, this is extremely pretty, and for the matter of that we entirely agree with it on principle. But, unfortunately for our contemporary, the very thing he reprobates is in existence. Canterbury, Otago, Hawke's Bay, and Wellington— we are not certain liow Nelson aad Westland stand affected in the matter of local charges—are protected against Auckland by the imposition of local prohitory dues, and Auckland is absolutely debarred from equalising the interprovincial tariffs, by imposing similar local dues. "What is the good of the Cross preaching up the "one and indivisible interests" of New Zealand when we know that they are not one and indivisible, but separate aad distinct. Our contemporary's argu- [ ment drawn from the autonomy of the I Australian colonies, is not applicable to this colony. New Zealand is a federation. Each province is in fact a separate State, having its own legislature, laws, taxing system, educational machinery, and Government distinct from every other province • and by virtue of these independent powers conferred by the constitution, the Southern States impose heavy local charges on all live stock and produce which may come from any

neighbouring province or State; while the Cross, speaking on behalf of our " paternal" Government, says, in effect, that Auckland shall not be " tolerated" to impose similar dues on Southern produce and live stock, and thus enable us to compete on equal terms with the South.

The Cross admits the justice of our position. He says : —" The argumen- " tation of our contemporary to the " effect that, because the Southern " provinces protect themselves against " Auckland, Auckland should protect "herself against the Southern pro- " vinces, would have much force if we " maintained that the Southern pro- " vinces have acted rightly in so doing. " But our reasoning have been against " inter-provincial protection, by what " province soever perpetrated, and two " wrongs do not make a right." Undoubtedly our contemporary has been inconsistent in his reasoning. That we readily admit All protectionists blow hot and cold with the same breath. But we fail to see what consolation an Auckland sheep farmer would find after paying 10a. dipping fee at Lyttelton on a clean lamb ram, for instance, by reflecting that the Cross did not " maintain that Canter- " bury acted rightly in so doing." That would be a barren kind of satisfaction we opine; and when we reflect that by reason of these hostile inter-provincial imposts, Auckland farmers have been compelled to give up the once profitable trade of rearing sheep for breeding purposes for the Southern provinces, while their sheep, cattle, and produce, come into our markets free. Perhaps the Cross may be inclined to admit that even his opinion ia of little weight as against the hard facts of the case.

One word in conclusion. The Cross begs the question of surplus produce. Ot:r remarks relative to tho surplus production referred, as the context shows, to food. We say New Zealand produces a surplus of food, which she exports, but that Auckland cannot supply the home demand. The Cross says : —" If the colony produces a " surplus of everything for export " after supplying home consumption, " protection would be a folly," and then goes on to refer to woollen goods as an example of deficiency in production. This is simply evading the point. As the colony really produces a surplus of cereals, butter, cheese, beef, mutton, and bacon, why impose protective duties to foster their production ? Woollen goods are heavily taxed for revenue purposes, and to this we do not object; but our contemporary's argument like all protectionist doctrines, pushed to its legitimate issue, would resolve itself into a palpable absurdity. The whole matter, so far as it concerns this community, may be briefly summed up. A protective tariff has been imposed by the votes of the surplusproducing South, aided by our " pater- " nal Government." This is aimed against foreign and to give the South a monopoly of the Auckland market. On the other hand, by means of local charges, they prevent Auckland producers competing with them in the South ; and through their political influence with our " paternal " Government" they compel Auckland to admit their produce free of similar charges. Auckland, therefore, suffers at both hands. Our remedy is simple. Abolish all .local and general imposts, in the nature /of discriminating duties, and leave thej development of agriculture, manufacture, and trade to private enterprjso and public competition.