DANGEROUS AGITATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14281, 1 August 1908, Page 14

DANGEROUS AGITATION.

Sir,—No doubt you aro awaro the agitation hist year (or the removal of duties on flour an<l potatoes caused 18,430 acres of wheat, and 4500 acres of potatoes less to be sown than in the preceding year, and the serious southern drought considerably reduced the yield. The last two years have been abnormal ones, and there is not likely to bo a recurrence for some time to coine; at least we lippo so. We know that a fanner would much prefer 35 bushels of wheat per acre at 3s Gd, yielding £6 2s 6d, to 20 bushels at 4s 9d, yielding £4 15s. If any particular State in the Australian Commonwealth shoulil have a drought and New Zealand a. surplus, we aro debarred from supplying owing to the Commonwealth's heavy dutv of £2 10s per ton on tlour. Yet when Now Zealand farmers have a drought or damaged crops, and want more to save fchtim from loss, our small duty of £1 per ton makes New Zealand the dumpingground for the Australian surplus, and soriously interferes with tho New Zealand wheat-grower and miller, and is it not reasonable to suggest that our duty ou flour Ought to bo tlie same as Australia's, as tlie Commonwealth's high price always ruling, for offal—i.e., bran and sharps,— and the cheapness of wheat production, augmented by the railage rate on wheat, etc., being quite 40 pea- cent, bolow ours, precludes Now, Zealand from competing? , We hoar the Australian millers areadvisfog New Zealand merchants that it is the New Zealand Government's intention to abolish the duty on flour this year, so you can see at a glance tlie danger of such stupid agitation, whioh, if allowed, will ultimately j>ut us at the mercy of foreign Powers in times of trouble (and is,not this England's present weakness''), besides crippling numerous allied industries, and our railways also .reducing land values. ' The farmers of Now Zealand want to be enoomged, not discouraged, as thoir protective duties on produce ore infinitesimal compared witli Australia's, though a " few" ill New Zealand think that tho farmer should be heavily taxed for boots, clothing, etc., _ yet supply produce on a free trade basis. A few butter districts, with their heavy protective duty on per ■ cent, on butter, and coddled 8-nd entered, for in every conceivable manner by our Government, care little about tho wheat-grower and millor. Just remote the duty on butter wlien thero is a slump on, in Australia, and how would the New Zealand industry fare? The price of butter has advanced throughout the Dominion, owing to our rooent droughts, quite l£d. per-lb, equal to £14 per toi and not a murmur, oven though the Government'renewed the pasturos by giving over £70,000 in grass seed.- Did tho suffering wheat-growers reccivo similar treatment? The' cry is Open up fresh agricultural' lands; but what is the use of doing so unless the products of the soil are protected to compete with greedy Australia? You will notice the Wellington wharf ! and Umber workers want, more duty put' on foreign timbar, to keep them fully employed, even though New Zealand timber is a vanishing asset; vet these people forget, how their agricultural and railway brethren would fare .with duty-free flour. In fact, it would cripple all agricultural labour and the railways, also seriously interfere with our coastal steamers in the carriage of t!i. raw material,'and what would our New Zealand stock do without, bran and sharps booiuse Australia has seldom any to export? It has often been stated by a " few" that, if the New Zealand wheat-growers and millers oaniwfc compete with Australia, America, and Canada, without protection'; they are not worth considering. This argument should also apply to tlie boot, clothing, butter, and numerous other industries Willi their heavy protective dirties; if''they cannot competo with, tlie sweated surplusages of Europe, America, India, and Canada, without protection, they are not. worth considering.—l am, etc., Fair, Plat.