THE DUTY ON FRUIT AND PISH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9927, 17 September 1895, Page 3

THE DUTY ON FRUIT AND PISH.

TO THE EDITOK. Sir,—This is supposed to be a Government for the people, by the people, and yet we see changes continually being made that are opposed to the people's interests and welfare. Let us look into an effect of a duty on island fruit. The whole thing is very simple, and the facts are as follow 'There are vast numbers of the people of Mew Zealandl may say almost every family—who desire, and use, Island fruit. Now, how do they get it ? Buy it, of course, will be answered. Mot a bit of it, sir. It is done in this way. By our " division of labour" there are certain people employed to grow and manufacture things required by the islanders. This produce is sent done to the islands in exchange for fruit— if all I hear be true, the exchanges are made much to our advantage. It is clear to me that, in this case, we are not buying oranges from the natives, but are really buying the oranges from the people who grow and manufacture the produce given in exchange for the oranges; thereby employing our own people to satisfy our own desires. This will be called an indirect purchase, but it is so direct that when we cease to buy island fruit, th« people now employed in producing, manufacturing, and distributing the wealth given in exchange for the fruit will be all thrown out of employment. There is a large trade already established, and we give the natives 10s worth of labour products for, say, ' £10 worth of island produce — if valued at what would be our own cost of production. I suppose the object in putting on the duty is either to encourage the production of oranges and bananas here, or to extract more taxation from the consumers of fruit. If it is done to encourage the production of oranges here, I should say that our time will be much more profitably employed in raising other products to give in exchange for the island grown fruit. If it is to extract taxation from the consumers of fruit, I must strongly object, as the masses hava too little purchasing power at present prices. A duty on fruit will benefit no person, and will destroy the pur* chasing power of the people now engaged indirectly producing our island fruit. It will be said that our people can go into the country and plant orange trees, and when the trees bear fruit they can sell the oranges, thereby regaining the purchasing power that we are now taking from them, by using the tariff to compel them to produce oranges rather than other things to give in exchange for Island oranges The steamers could be laid up until the trees are old enough to bear fruit, unless they are required to convey the inhabitants of this colony to some place where the legislators have more sense than to be tiukering with things they do not seem to understand.

Now let us look at the question of fish. Here we find that a duty has been put on foreign fish, and a bonus given on fish exported. Under this protection there have been canneries established in various districts in the colony, and mora will be established as the demand increases. A large number of people are directly or indirectly employed in producing fish, and, we may assume, living at about the same standard as people engaged in other industries, being subjected to the same pressure of coinpetiton. The industry having been started, our legislators propose to take off the duty, thereby compelling us to produce fish at the same price which the surplus stock of Canadian factories can be landed here, by steamers subsidised to the extent that freights will be lower from Canada than from Kaipara to Auckland. The large factories of Canada can shut up every factory in New Zealand with their surplus stock in a very short time. They employ a horde of cheap Chinese labour, working night and day, so that the surplus stock costs the Canadian capitalists practically nothing but an extra screw on the labour extracting wheel. I should have no objection to taking the duty o(f fish, if it could be shown in what way our people can be employed in producing things to give in exchange for the Canadian fish, as is the case with the Island fruit, Even if we could make the Cauadians take our produce in exchange for their fish, it would be dishonest to throw our own people out of employment by taking off a duty which planted the industry, and subsidising steamers to flood our markets with products raised by cheap Chinese labour. I would now point out the difference in protecting the fish industry and protecting the fruitgrowers from outside competition. The sea from which the fish are taken is free to all men, so that the first " value " stored in the fish is purely a labour value. On the other hand the land being held as private property is often valued very high, and is net free to the husbandman to plane orange trees, hence the value of the oranges, or cost of production, is increased by the amount) charged for the use of the land. Here we see that any increase of duty on the raw products of land will give the local landholders the power of charging the Customs duties on to the people in the form of increased rental, a3 the competitors from free lands outside the colony would be handicapped to the extent of the duties imposed. As we still hav£ free land in this colony we have not to face the question at present, but the time must come when protection would be the means of starving the people in place of protecting them. In the meantime it is necessary for our legislators to understand that there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied to the regulating of Customs duties to benefit the people. They should also realise the fact that in the tariff they have an instrument in their hands capable of lifting us on to the road of prosperity or dragging us all down to the verge of starvation.l am, etc., A. Sanford. September 14.