Not the Reason Why.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 870, 2 November 1888, Page 28

Not the Reason Why.

It is perhaps only natural that, those who have earnestly, persistently, and consistently opposed the now Customs Tariff should find in that tariff the source and origin of all the ills that now exist in New Zealand. perhaps is somewhat dull : whether it be duller than before the new tariff came into force is an arguable question. Probably the truth would be found on impartial investigation lobe that business is better in some respects and worse in others, the average being little altered. But it is a long step to prove that all dulnesa of trade—- “ depression,” if the word be preferred —is due, oven in a degree, to the new Customs Tariff. The ground taken up is, of course, the superficial one —that the increased duties have made things dearer, and so have caused fewer things and less quantities to be purchased than would have been the case had the old tariff remained unaltered. To some extent this is possibly correct. Some people may have practised self-denial and refrained from purchasing articles which they needed or desired, because these were a few pence or shillings dearer. But, if so, they would bo strangely uncolonial in their ways. We should require very strong and direct ovi dence to convince us that goods, because they had become slightly dearer, went unpurchased, if they were really required or wished for. But we do not for a moment deny that this may have been the case in some special instances. That it has not been the case to any very large extent may fairly be argued from the last quarter’s Customs returns which we analysed a few days ago. Those returns showed that the revenue accruing from the ad valorem and miscellaneous duties—from the so-called “protective” duties, iu fact—was larger by nearly 30 per cent, than in the September quarter of last year. The increase in revenue came almost exclusively from the augmented duties which were said to be protective in their character, therefore non-pro-ductive as to revenue, because, as Freetraders justly contend, proportionately as n duty acts protectively, it fails to yield revenue. For it can only “protect” by excluding foreign goods. If.it exclude foreign goods it produces no revenue. Yetthese new duties, so far from proving protective in the sense asserted, have actually yielded nearly 30 per cent more revenue. Clearly, then, they have not kept down consumption as to these classes of goods. That there has been a fallibg-off in consumption, and consequently in revenue, with respect to certain other, imports is undeniable, and these items are alcoholic liquors, tobacco, and tea. But does this represent a real loss to the community? We take leave to doubt it. It would occupy too much space to-day to discuss the benefits which a country derives from a large consumption of tea and tobacco. We may touch on that point another day. Without going so far as to agree entirely with those modern anti-tea zealots who declare that excess in teadrinking is more mischievous than dramdrinking—at any rate more physically injurious—we may at least assume it will be admitted that an excessive quantity of tea has long been swallowed in New Zealand with unquestionably pernicious effects. And it-ia equally indisputable that doctors earnestly counsel greater moderation in this respect; that many people have become impressed with the unwisdom of excess in tea, and have taken to a variety of less harmful substitutes. We are inclined to suspect that this, and not the increased duty, is the true explanation of the reduced revenue from tea. We do not believe that one cup fewer or weaker has been drunk on feeeount of the sixpenny duty having superceded the old fourpenny. We may be wrong, fe&t that is our opinion. Next as to fcobaeeo $ opinions may differ as to the greater op jess ill effects of smoking, but few wiii uzsjzpj:, that the practice is positively bene-' ficial, save in rare instances. We have known of a London merchant who had never smoked until he was fifty years old, being then ordered, by his medical attendant, to smoke tobacco a/3 a sedative to over excited nerves, and-' who, tin reupon becoming an inveterate smoker, has smoked ever since, and does so still at 80 years of hale .old age. But his case does not prove

that it is desirable for wretched urchins and hobbledehoys to ruin their digestion, stunt tlieir growth, waste their pocket-money, and make tberpselves a nuisance generally by everlastingly puffing bad tobacco. Nor does it prove that the majority of men, young or in the prime of life, would not be much better without the indulgence. At all events it must at least be conceded that a diminution in the consumption of tobacco is not a circumstance to weep and wail over, or a symptom of commercial decadence. Then there are the duties on alcoholic liquors. These, in spite of considerable increases in rate, have yielded a largely diminished revenue, indicating materially decreased consumption. If we were disinclined to bemoan the lessened use of tea and tobacco, we are still less disposed to lament the smaller quantities of wine, beer and spirits that are being imbibed as compared with the habit of former years. The change seems to us so eminently satisfactory as to compensate the country for any loss of revenue. It can only mean that the people have' become more, temperate. Thatis no matter to be deplored. Let it he said that the unhappy people are more sober because they cannot afford to drink so much as of yore. Heaven be praised that tliov are more sober, whatever be the reason! But there is another side to this also. It is true that the more temperate use of alcohol, tobacco and tea has caused a loss of some £15,00!) to the quarter’s revenue. But there is an increase of £35,000 on the remaining import duties ; so it is clear that the public have been able to spend on other and unobjectionable things an additional sum more than twice as large as they have saved on drink aud smoke. That is not unsatisfactory. And this is not all. The Savings Bank returns for the same quarter show that the three months’ deposits were 1211 more in number, and £43;578 more iu value than those of the September quarter of 1887, while the deposits exceeded the withdrawals by £33,689. Now we do not pretend to assert authoritatively that these figures represent cause and effect, but it looks very much like it, or at least as if. one had something to do with the other. The people consumed so much less drink and smoke as may be represented by some £15,000 less duty. They purchased so much more goods as may be represented by £35,000 more duty; and' they put £43,578 more into the post office savings bank, while they drew out, £33,689 less than they put in. There is the case, and it is by no means an unfavourable one, either for the new tariff or for the country. But even were the position otherwise—were it true that the new tariff has injured everybody bo terribly—it would still not follow that the increased taxation could have.been dispensed with. We have never bulled the new tariff as a. heaven-sent boon. On the contrary, we have always deplored the necessity for imposing so heavy an increase in the public burdens. But what was to be done? That is just what the opponents of the tariff have never told us. They have generalized vaguely about further retrenchment, but have ever been careful to avoid offering such details as might be tested and analysed. They, like ourselves, have advocated a reduction in the excessive educational expenditure. But what is the use of talking about that when neither the House nor the country will listen to it for a moment ? And even if rigid economy were practised in that department it would still leave a huge gap which could only be filled up by increased Customs duties. They talk of the new tariff injuring trade, and recommendfurther drastic retrenchment instead ! Why, has not the retrenchment already carried out, as a stern and painful necessity, been a prominent factor in causing general dulness and depression ? Have not the wholesale dismissals and salary-re-ductions been forced on us as the penalty for past extravagance, thrown numbers out ofemployment, and stinted the means of many others ? This could not b 6 helped. It had become a repulsive necessity, because we could no longer afford to go on as before, but it stands to reason that not only must individuals h&p,o suffered greatly through the process, but algo trade must have been seriously affected in consequence. To us it appears surprising that the effect of such enforced and stringent economies has not been far more severe than seems to have been the case. But th/9 theory that such dulness and depression as way .exist. ,evn be traced to the new tariff has gjiynißtfriy not a leg to stand upon.