THE PREMIER ON PROTECTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7783, 29 January 1887, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE PREMIER ON PROTECTION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Sir Robert Stout seems very much averse to calling himself a Protectionist, though he persistently advocates Protection. He says the tariff ought to be so framed as to promote local industries. If this is not Protection, I don't know what is. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the adoption: of a system of Protection does not exceed the just limits of State interference, | let us examiue the arguments put forward by Sir Robert in its behalf. Sir Robert Stout, so far as I can remember, has never defended Protection on economic grounds. If he thought there was an answer to the argument so strongly urged by the other side, it is very unlikely that he would not give us the benefit of his wisdom on that score. It may therefore, be assumed that he has no answer. Ever since 1879, when he deliveied an address on the Irish question, Sir Robert has been harping on one point which he trots out on all possible opportunities. He lent the idea to Sir Julius when the latter returned from England to re-enter politics, and the wily one fell in love with i 1; at once. It is exceedingly plausible— indeed it reads like a truism. I believe it is also original. Last night Sir R. Stout gave it us again iv these words-. " That any country to be great must never depend upon one or two industries alone." Now, in the first place, there is no country—at any rate this is not one—that depends wholly upon one or two industries. But assuming it to be true, Sir Robert's statement is hardly an argument for Protection. Because all great countries have many industries to depend upon, it does not follow that the creation of a great many industries will make any country great. The mere existence of a variety of industries will not effect greatness in a nation. In certain cases at any rate it will not. For instance, if a country with a very few inhabitants, say 20, were to make for themselves everything they used which it was possible for them to make, and if they were lucky enough to be on as fertile a spot as Robinson Crusoe's island, they would perhaps live as well as Defoe says Crusoe did—a life very much akin to savagery. If they were to have simply a piece of land and personal property equal to what would be given to each person in New Zealand, were the colony equally divided amongst its inhabitants, it needs little foresight to see that they would have a very hard struggle for subsistence, and that any efforts for well-being would be out of the question—at any rate there is no doubt that the little country would not thrive anything like so well under such conditions as it would if it had Freetrade with the world. In such cases, therefore, enforced establishment of such a variety of industries would be a curse rather than a blessing. One of the alleged advantages of having a number of industries is that they give a greater security against depression than in the case of only one industry. For it is argued that before the country can go entirely to the bad all industries must fail'; and assuming there is equal chance of failing among all

industries, the country with one industry is more likely to go wholly to the bad than the country with a number of industries. This appears to be self-evident, indeed it is true in the way it is stated. But if we look at the community as simply a collection of individuals, it has a very different aspect. Now, if We assume that there is an equal chance of failing with regard to all industries', what is the position of each individual ? I will endeavour to show that each individual's position in both countries is the same in respect to security from depression. Supposing we have one country, say England, depending upon a great number of industries, and another country, say New Zealand, depending solely upon one industry. As there is an equal likelihood of one industry failing as any other, each person, whether in England or New Zealand, is liable on the average to the same amount of depression. And it does not make his position any the better or any the worse that everybody else's egg is in the same basket as his. To illustrate by way of Sir Robert's basket of eggs: Supposing there are 10 men, each carrying daily an egg to market, and on the average one gets broken every tenth journey; at the end of every 10 trips there will be on the average 10 eggs broken, though one only among the 10 will be on the average broken each trip. Further, at the cud of the tenth trip each person will have had one egg broken. The individual loss therefore is precisely the same as it would be if the eggs were all in on« basket, with the result, 10 eggs broken every ten trips, which equals one egg to each man. Now, if a man's trade becomes unprofitable, his acquired skill is rendered useless; and it may be said that with regard to the country depending solely upon one industry, there are no industries into which those can enter whose capital and labour are thrown out of employment; and, on the other'jhand, there would be other industries if Protection had been allowed to foster and encourage them, into which this labour aud capital could find its way. Well, as to this, it appears to me clear that this labour and capital would be just as easily employed in starting new industries as in entering old ones, seeing that the acquired skill and experience in the industry that has failed would be of as little use in the one case as in the other. ■ • . Sir Robert goes on to say in support of his theory, that "if you look at a country that is mainly agricultural you will find it behindhand in education, in civilisation, and mental development." Now (1) it seems to me that this is a question almost wholly for parents, who in most cases consider a measure against one | another the physical, moral, and mental advantages and disadvantages of the different industries before embarking a ch>ld on the voyage of life. (2) The country has its advantages on the physical and moral side, more than counterbalancing the mental advantages derived from employment in town. Moreover, further on in his speech on Tuesday evening Sir Robert Stout said "that the physical health of the race should be the first consideration of the race. . . That if we are to have manufactures in our midst purchased at the expense of the physical deterioration of the race we would be better without them," &c. And I say that iusofar as the people are diverted from employment in the country to employment in the town by the pecuniary encouragement to manufacture?, by so much is the physical condition of the community lowered.—l am, &c, January 27. Looker On.