IS RECIPROCITY NEEDED BY NEW ZEALAND?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13693, 8 September 1906, Page 7

IS RECIPROCITY NEEDED BY NEW ZEALAND?

. . TO m IDROS. 'i

Sir,—Whenever tho Customs duties' have been materially decreased thero lias always been a monstrous outcry that local works would be absolutely, ruined. When the duty on imported candles was reduced to' Id a lb wc wore threatened with the closing oown of every candlc factory in New Zealand. Yet. our Dunedin factory lias prospered exceedingly. When the duty was decreased on patent mcdicines the New Zealand Brug Company, in print, threatened no dividend to its shareholders, jet- it now pays handsomely. -And - the colony's revenuo has been materially augmented by increased importations in cachof these instances, and there has as .well been a considerable gain to tho general public. Now we are threatened on all sides by tho Flourmillers* Association. Within one week .we are assured that tho mills a-ro gristing at practically cost price, and then we are told,that flour eou'.d be landed at 12s 6d a ton less than tho local "cost price." K'vcrybodv ents bread; therefore everybody, without exception, is interested in this great question (including every farmer). Is the mass of tho whole people to suffer for the sako of the few piillers and employees? Practically speaking, wheat never was much cheaper than now; yet tlicro was a time, when we had to pay only Id a lb for our bread, but never again does it seem as if wo will get it less than ljd a lb. Nobody clso rail we blarao but the Flourmillors' Association. Such is the absolute fact,-yet nobody seems to point out to us wherein lies the unpardonable sin of that combine. To my mind the only proof possible would lie within tho accusation that'the margin of profit is too great between the cost of the wheat and the selling value-of-flour, and this has never'been proved'; , in l otlie* : words, it is affirmed that the farmer is.thc ono who receives 6d a bushel too much for his wheat. This. is .where my conundrum is: Is tho wheat produced in. New Zealand barely sufficient to supply ourselves with flour? If so, then we must admit that tlio miller pays for his wheat, just tho highest possible limit; and, also, that tho farmers, if they were to hold .out fo r another .Id a bushel, would at once swamp all tho flourmillers by creating such an influx of imported flour bearing the cost of tlio present heavy import, duty. Tho custom of the combine has been to sell flour at about l(h a ton cheaper than what.it can.be landed at. I-havo travelled a great deal in the country, and have never heard of a farmer who is prepared to acknowledge that it pajs to gro it wheat at its present priw.

Yet it is grown, and by whom? Chiefly . by the well-to-do farmer. Is thero any reason, then-fore, why he should bo protected (to tho extent of 6d a bushel) at tho ■ v cost of the whole community? If it does not pay to grow it at the present price in New- Zealand, then let tho grower grow something else that will pay. Then let us ---\i admit wheat, (not. flour) freo of duty. If -,f\i the flourmillor persisted in charging too much for his flour, then wo could' admit flour freo also. . . I can't understand why even.2o per oent.--ad valorem was retained on potatoes. I am of opinion that it is only the well-to-do grower who "holds" his potatoes ,until now or later. He would ratlior soll half hii crop at double price and let tho other halt fi go bad than to give tlw potatoes at their present price. Ho deserves no sypmathy. . i With tho oxception of sugar,' I really fail to 600 where wo can give and tako'in reciprocity regarding' any of ! tho other items, equally advantageous to both parties, . and I would like to seo the'list equitably dissected by an ablo writer.—l am, etc., : ---A Pekegrikatob.- J