N.Z. MAIL PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 1888.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 849, 8 June 1888, Page 16

N.Z. MAIL PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 1888.

Issue has at last been definitely joined between the supporters and the opponents of the now Tariff. It would hardly bo accurate to say between the Ministerial and Opposition parties, because for the time being these have ceased to exist. The Government are, of course, proposing the Tariff, but a largo number of tho Government party aro not supporting the Tariff, and a large number of those who are supporting the Tariff do not support the Government, excepting on this question. Such a’position of affairs is complex in an exceptional degree, and it is by no means easy to see what will be the ultimate outcome. At present the prospect seems to be “ contusion worse confounded.” And the prevalent confusion appears to us to extend to the ideas of some of those who have seceded from the Government on this question. These say in effect to the Government: —“We assisted to place and keep you in office last year on the general understanding that you were opposed to such tariffs as those proposed by Sir Julius Vogel in ISSS and ISS7. You accepted pur support, knowing that we were uncompromising Freetraders. Yet now you bring in a tariff which is that of Sir Julius Vogel, only ‘more so,’ and which is, moreover, so Prot.ee tionist in character as to be utterly repugnant and intolerable to us Free traders, although it is acceptable to the Opposition, being in fact framed in accordance with their views. Therefore we contend that you have deserted us, your friends, and thrown us overboard, to fling yourselves into the arms of your foes; and so you have left us no alternative but to vote against you.” Such, as we understand it, is virtually the attitude taken up by the Ministerialist seheders, and at the first blush it may seem plausible. But there is another side to tho case. In the first place the present Government never professed or pretended to be a Freatrade Ministry, On the contrary, the Premier was incorrectly, but very as an out and-out Protectionist ■ and although he disclaimed this classification, he took care to intimate very plainly that he was not ar_ out-and out Freetrader. Further, he expressly declared at the outset of last session that a revision of the tariff was necessary, and i hat a revised tariff would be. brought down ihD, vear by the Government, which Would be devised ' not only to raise tho additional revenue required, hut also, so far as practicable, to. assist local industries. There was no mistake at all about that. Nothing was more clearly understood all round than that Sir Hurry Atkinson would, . this year, introduce a revi.-ed tariff, that should not only raise more revenue (which- he distinctly warned the House would be ri quisiti), but should a’so aid local uulustrnt*. Therefote we cannot see that the Ministerialist Freetraders have,any just ground of complaint on that score. But in the second place they say that tho » embers of the present. Government oppose 1 the VogGian tariffs of JSSS and 1.857, and yet are now advocating one in which everv feature condemned inthosetaaiffs is reproduced in’ an aggravated form. 'Pi,is contention a'so seems to us to be based on an inaccurate recollection of \\luit really occurred in 1883 and 1887. The declared groundon which Sir Harry Atkinson, and-several who are now supporting him, opposed the tariff proposals of the Stout-VogcJ Government was not that these were too Protective, but that tho effect would be to raise a large additional revenue, which had not been shown to be required. The position taken up by Sir Harry Atkinson and his party was that "before one penny of extra- taxation should be grained- 1 irge ret rem-h----ment —to * be tuna of at least .£200,000 or £300,000 must, be carried out. And it was because t.lio late Government persisted in endeavourin'; .tv force on this extra taxation without having first effected satisfactory retrenchment that they were .fumed out of office by so overwhelm a majority on an appeal to the country. That being the case lasi year it will at once be seen that tin circumstances are totally altered this year. There is no inconsistency at al in what the Government are doing In the short space of a four-montl

rscesa they have carried out retrenchment to the extent of £233,000, but still, owing to the failure of certain large items of revenue to reach even the moderate estimate adopted, and the consequent necessity of adopting a still smaller estimate this year, additional means must be employed to raise revenue. Accordingly the promised revised tariff is brought in framed on the lines indicated last year, when the revision was promised. We can see no inconsistency here- On the contrary, the inconsistency appears to us rather to rest with those who supported the Government last session and oppose them now, although the Ministerial policy remains unchanged.