THE TARIFF.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2055, 5 September 1868, Page 3

THE TARIFF.

The debate in the Legislative Council on the : Revision of the Tariff is not suggestive of. great practical-ability on the part of its members. 'The* speeches of those who took part in the debate are as meagre as they, could well be. There is not a vestige of conclusive argument on one side or the other. The subject was handled with reference to. a few isolated facts, as if the hardships entailed by the Tariff on particular classes were the only grievance it gives rise to. But the strangest part of the matter ia that, whea

the anomalies of the Tariff were undei discussion, so few of them should have excited the attention of the CounciL The Tariff is full of anomalies, and those of the most ludicrous kind. Ifc is so fulL of them as to force upon us the conviction that its framers were not only ignorant of the principles which should govern, financial legislation, but indifferent to> the results which must ensue from mischievous schemes of taxation. We wis&r to foster our commerce ; we have got a, Tariff which subjects it to the mostr harassing restrictions, without affording; anything iri the shape of compensationThe Tariff is not satisfactory to those who require the aid of protective duties, while it is equally unsatisfactory to those who> abhor the idea of Protection. No parties are satisfied. Free Trader and Protec-

tionist alike condemn it, while the Go* vernment, though for very different reasons, condemns it to. Under such, circumstances, a good prima facie case exists for the immediate revision of the Tariff; but the revision is demanded, not on behalf of the general interests o£ the country, but those of a special class.. The ncr, cus and apologetic manner m which Mr Holmes exposes his Protectionist weakness is decidedly amusing. While the tenor of his remarks was obviously an argument for Protection, he took care to declare himself a Free Trader;. but none of his fellow Council^ •

lors was imposed upon by the declaration The grounds on which he asked for a revision were, the failure of the Tariff ta promote the interests of the industrial, classes; but the only industrial class in whose welfare Mr. Holmes appears to heinterested is the agriculturists. He con&----j plains, for instance, of the duty on spirits;: I arid suggests that, by reducing the dutjf from 12s. a gallon to 3s. or 10s., aa& ; legalising, distillation in the colony, wet should * discourage the illicit trade, anc!: iat the same time benefit agriculturists by: giving them a bettef market for theze^ barley.' The next complaint refers totha fact that there is no duty on the importation of grain into New Zealand; the consequence of which is, that while the Melbourne merchant can send a cargo o£ flour into any port on our coast free q£ duty, a New Zealand merchant must pay £lper ton on all the flour he sends toMelbourne. Supposing, says Mr Holme% that flour is sent from New Zealand to* Melbourne and thence back to New Zealand, the Victorian Government pockets £1 per ton on it, without giving us any equivalent in return. The conclusion he draws from these premises is, that we must.' either cease to levy duties oa articles consumed by the farmers, or impose a duty which would place him om precisely the same footing as the person, importing.' These are the arguments; put forward by Mr Holmes on behalf of. the proposed Revision, and these are the grievances which lie heavy on his iriind. Are we to infer that Mr Holmes would have no objection to the Tariff provided we taxed grain and encouraged distillation ? The latter part of his speech, is occupied with remarks on the? agricultural resources of the colony —from [beet sugar to eggs and. bacon—in the course of which- he appears to endorse the bonusing systenfc. of pur Provincial Council as applied t* manufactures. It- is clear enough that Mr Holmes, although ' of course a free trader,' is by no means opposed to Protection as applied to agriculture.

; If the only benefit we are to expect from, a revision is an import duty on grain, the Tariff may as' well be let alone. Wearer not all farmers, but we are all consumers: of breadstufts ; and we are all of opinion, that the prices of provisions are quite, high enough already. But the labours o£ the Committee appointed by the CouneiE to inquire into thi3 matter will be beneficial, whatever the views of the Committee* individually may be. In the words o£ the motion, their object will be tot examine ' the practical effect of the 1 Tariff on the commerce and industrial pursuits of the people.' From such art investigation, if thoroughly carried out, we may expect disclosures which will tenet toi hasten the reform of our taxation. When everybody is satisfied that tha commerce of the country is struggling** urider unnecessary difficulties, and thafc the industrial pursuits of the people are hardly better off than their commerce, th&Y action of the Legislature will probably be quickened. If the present rate of Customs duties is to be continued, we see no? reasonwhy the industrial interests advocated by Mr Holmes should not benefit by them. If taxes must be laid on nearly everything we import, let us by ali mean®. include in the list those articles which we can produce ourselves. We: shall theit derive some appreciable advantage front these duties; we shall improve the position of the people and Offer increase*!, attractions for immigration. There is rio* wisdom in reducing the business of the country to the single item of importing;. But On the other hand, if our CustomsY duties are merely emergency taxes to ber. done away with at the first opportunity, we: should be on our guard against the introduction of the Protection difficulty*..It has already proved disastrous in more: than one of the Australian settlements, - and will assuredly do so here, if it is allowed to spring up amongst us. ; 81. this view of the matter, we very mneh. regret the action, taken by Mr Holmes r because the line; of argument adopted by him with reference to the farmers will be adopted, when the time comes, by every ■other branch of the industrial community.. If the Legislature; is prepared: '■ to i sanction a thorough Protectionist policy, weU and good: we shall thea. know whither we are steering, .and the endeavor of Provincial Councu^ito. bonus manufactures into existence, asYwell: aa such movements as those of Mr;BjQL3E^ will serve the V purpose of initiatirigH;haY new era. But we feel very; certain thafc neither the Legislature, Hprt^rnQstpowec-, ful interests iri the: Colony^ am^r^pjsred to sanction that policy at Yiais;f;7aad. Ywe also feel certain that if it is<ever carrie^.out, it will be so only after many years: o§ : bitter dissension; It is beyond a doabfe that manufactures carinot flourish- in tiria- ' colony, or in any other colony, without protective duties. The offer of a bonus is a mere delusion. The manufacturer will no sooner have pocketed his £ 150 ft from the Government, than he will find that something more is needed to establish a market. He will have to contend with the prejudice of the people -sail. of retail tradesmen in favor of cheaprhnported goods, to say nothing of a rate..- of. wages three or four times greaterthautaet rate in Great Britain. We. say' agai^; let -v's either announce our intention to*, establish protective duties- for tiie : eit-

couragement of manufactures, or rt*sor lutely set our faces against --iosi&ittriar attempts to introduce Protection u&iar* the colour of Free Trade.

At Paris a priest asked a coachman, tha, othier day, if he ever greased his hor&ea* teeth to prevent theih- from eating their dafesi. He replied in the negative, but returned a. week after, and confessed that malpT&«ti«V "Why,' said the priest, "y<u 7 t6td me aY short time ago that you had never performed: this trick." "I certainly had not, goc-4 father," replied the coachman, "for I *iese£r heard of it until you told me."