THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1891.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8531, 3 April 1891, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1891.

All those who are engaged in this boot trade strike, and all those who devote themselves to get additional duties placed on imported goods, should consider well the letter we publish in another column, signed "Country Settler." The writer speaks on behalf of those who have to buy the boots made in Auckland. He says :—" We are informed that at old rates bootmakers can earn from 8s to 20s per day ; that many are content to work three days per week and loaf the rest of the time." At a recent meeting of the Employers' Association it was shown that the increases by the new statement would amount on some classes of goods to 80 per cent., and that where men now made 10s per day then they could earn 18s. The country settlers who have to buy the boots made, and who themselves cannot make more than 4s or 5s a day, and sometimes not even that, are beginning to ask whether this is fair play. It is not; and we are glad to see them opening their eyes to the situation. But let us examine how it has been brought about. People continued agitating for years to have such duties put on boots and shoes as should make the importation of these articles of necessity virtually impossible. Sanguine persons showed that if such and such duty were put on, imports would be prevented, a means would be opened for the profitable investment of money, and a large amount of employment would be given in the towns. Year by' year the duties were increased, till they became virtually prohibitive. But then the operatives have taken this business in hand, and the first result of their action has been to prevent the manufacturers getting any profit. Some of these gentlemen do not deserve much compassion. Their proposal and design from the first was to " sweat" the public, and perhaps to employ the same process on the work-; men.. But there were many who invested money in the boot trade under an honest idea that they were doing a patriotic thing in "encouraging local industry." When an objection was put forward to a prohibitory tariff on behalf of the country settler, the reply was, that the establishment of these industries in the cities would create a market for him, and that he also would be benefited by prohibitive protection. One would think that our rural population were as ignorant as the most uneducated Giles Chawbacon in England, and certainly when one sees that in many cases country constituencies sent to Parliament men who voted for a protectionist tariff, one cannot help thinking that they are a long way behind in knowing what is their own interest and the interest of the colony. The country settler . has to find a market out of the colony ; he receives no assistance from the Government, and he must take such price as he can got in the emporium of London. The worker in town stands on the tariff. He has the legal power to compel the country settler to pay the high price he likes for the boots he wears, and for almost every implement or tool that he uses. And the cry is still for more. The boot manufacturers have gone to considerable expense- in establishing their trade. It seems as if they would be compelled to yield to the demands put forward, and they make no secret that they will have to raise the prices to the already overburdened country settler, miner, gumdigger, and bushman. And yet' the labour of these latter men it is which supports the country, and enables it to pay the interest on the debt. Can Ave afford to go on any longer piling weight on the patient animal which is drawing tht» load? The manufacturers, seeing that their margin of profit is cut away by the demands of the men, will raise their prices, and if their goods are endangered by the competition of imported articles, they have simply to say that more duty is required to preserve and support an important native industry, and the House of Representatives will be obedient. Then things will go on as they were .for a little, while longer. But wo cannot see why th.e men who are maintaining the colony, the men whose work is really profitable to the colony, should be fleeced, in order to create trades which' are not Wanted, and which are a loss to the colony. If the country settlers, the miners, the gumdiggers, and the bushmen were relieved from the excessive protective duties they have to pay on articles of daily use, their labour would be much more remunerative than it is, and the settlement of the country would go on rapidly. .

What is the remedy ? Simply this, that on articles of necessity for all hard-working men, such as boots of the commoner kinds, the duty should'be abolished. The effect of this would be, no doubt, that some of the boot manufactories would be closed. But, then, the men would readily find employment at other occupations, and the capital would be more profitably employed in developing the resources of the colony. At present the capital and labour employed in many branches of the boot trade are unprofitable to the

colony, and a mere ; ourden. upon it: Besides, the capital and labour in the business are pei'petually in conflict. The country people have the remedy in their own hands. If they choose tocombine, as the people in the towns com-; bine, they can do just what best suits them, which, of course, would best suit the colony, for the country people are in a majority. Let them determines that they will have cheaper boots, and they can have them. Uphill. now thej have allowed themselves to be vie-* timised. They can put an end to the grievance at next session of Parliaments They have simply, acting as one man, peremptorily to instruct their representatives to vote for the repeal of the 20 per cent, now levied on boots. They will then be able to get good boots at a cheap price, and the colony will be relieved from the maintenance of an unprofitable industry, and from the loss caused by those frequent strikes.