THE TARIFF.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4473, 28 September 1901, Page 7

THE TARIFF.

(By "Fair Dealing”)

A great deal has been said lately, and especially in the House, during the dis. cussion on the Financial Statement, con. cerning the recent reductions in the tariff chargee being of'little or no benefit to tho consumer; and the article chiefly referred to in this respect was kerosene. There can ha no doubt that beyond the'slight fluctuations of the market there has been little alteration indeed in the price of this . commodity, to the consumer. Where; then, has the duty all gone? It might be as well to look into some of the local “trusts” over this matter when wo are asking the Government’s assistance regarding bigger trusts in England and America. Kerosene is just as plentiful and as cheap at it’souros as ever it was, and the facilities for bringing it across the seas are more accelerated now than before the reductions in the tariff were made,.Then, there must be a screw loose somewhere, andit behoves the Government of this colony to keen an eye for future speculation and profitable legislation on even- more than coal mines. But we do not all use kerosene, and to my mind these reriiarks apply with equal force to another commodity which is used probably in every household throughout the colony. The article I refer to is tea. Now, for years past the lino of tea placed roost prominently before the public had been the 3s blend or quality. It was 2s tea ton years age; it is 2s tea to-day. There has been two tariff reductions of 2d each'on tea since the present Govern, ment took office; When each of these redactions was made, I believe only one firm in the colony reduced their tea by the amount of the duty and without anv claptrap as to better quality, etc., .sold their former'Bs tea at the reduced price of, first, le lOd and then Is Bd. Probably the large amount of their tea sales to-day (I believe the largest in‘the colony) has proved the wisdom of : their' action. 1 The other firms d>d not reduce their teas. They told the people they were putting: in a better Quality of tea for the same money and still sold the usual brandsat the same price. n

Now, thera are two strange things about this business. First, how is it that 2s was the ruling price for tea ten years ago and before the reductions, yet with the 4d per lb redaction in the tariff, 2s is still the ruling price? Why, either the people are more extravagant or the tea is > inferior in quality. X defy anyone to say the tea now is better than it Fas before the tariff was taken, off; and it ft he tea at Is 8d now is as good aa the 2s was then (which should be the easel why then is it not more pat. ronised? The answer is easily seen; The public are being gulled day by day and they don’t know it. This matter is one which concerns Wellington people, I think, for more than some other places. In Auckland the old '“Standard S’’ 2s tea (I have not seen any pf it here) is retailed at alll the stores at Is 6d per lb;a few oth firms* old 2s tea retails .there at Is 8d; other'firms, again, are carrying on the same game there as they are here inWellington—sticking on the prices on the ground that it is bettor tea. Wellington is by far the worst place of the lot, which is strange; for .one . would have thought, with its larger wharfage accommodation and increased shipping, besides being the capital city of New Zealand, it could be retailed even cheap* er than in Auckland. No one is more glad of a concession from the Government than the man who toils and needs 1 all he can save, to meet his daily expenses. But, unfortunately, the trade of New Zealand is fast ,becomfinfc like that of older established countries—a combination of trade, rings, call them trusts or. whatever yon will, I only heard this week of a grocer who resides within the Wellington district, and who purposed giving his customers (I am-.not one of them) the benefit of some advantageous baying; bat be has been informed that if he lowers the regular price# at all. he will be boycotted

by the leading merchants. Now. an employees union to fix the rate . of wages is one matter, but for a combination of men to fix the absolute price of an article is a different matter altogether and altogether absurd.. To make a certain percentage of profit, giving fair value, is honest trading; but when an article comes down ■in value to still retain the old price, and thus exact an extra profit, is downright dishonesty. When these liberal concessions in the duty upon articles of everyday use simply revert to these combinations of wholesale merchants, is it not high time for the Government to interfere, and if there is any possibility whatever of doing so, to enforce regulations that shall ensure the saving going to the consumer? There are several ways in which this might be done, but the subject would occupy too inuch space to enumerate in this letter.