Oxford and Cust Observer. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, October 26, 1889.

Oxford Observer, Volume 1, Issue XI, 26 October 1889, Page 4

Oxford and Cust Observer. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, October 26, 1889.

The subject of Intercolonial Reciprocity lias been prominently before the public lately. We use this designation rather than the phrase " Intercolonial Fyeetrade,". because we confess to being doubtful whether the proposal is really a step towards Freetrade. If it is, its advocates are the most cautious Freetraders m the world. However, without entering minutely into a dispute as to the bearings of the movement, we may say that its. design is briefly' as follows : — To establish a Customs Union between all the Australasian Colonies, with a uniform tariff. This is certainly praiseworthy, but we fear that any such proposal will encounter fierce opposition from local interests such as at present exist m Victoria. Legislation m Victoria is actually at work to protect Victorian producers from their compeers m the surrounding colonies. It is true that New South Wales is at present a professedly Freetrade Colony, but it is doubtful how long she will be allowed to remain so. As for ourselves, m New Zealand, we have every possible consideration ready to our hand, to induce us to jump at Intercolonial Freetrade. It would give us, for instance, Australian maiv kets for our manufactures and our produce ; and we should find that the evil of our present foreign Protective tariff would he far. less s.erious if we ■were^ possessed of a very considerable area for Frefetrade m general commodities. , The difficulty, therefore, lies on- the Australian side. For example, Australian farmers do not want food to be cheapened. In their clamor for increased corn duties, to enable them to grow wheat m a country scarcely intended by nature for wheat, they are not unlike the imaginary Protectionists referred to by Mr Blair m liis able pamphlet, who would wish the plain of the Taieri, m Otago, to be rooied m ■with glass, m order to promote the cultivation of the vine. Until the Australian farmers can see that the imposijjon of an excessive duty oh produce will raise the price of living only ' to the consumer m the long run, and that it will not keep prices permanently above the level of the current market value, we cannot expect much solid progress to be made m the direction of Intercolonial Freetrade. It is common to quote the case of the United States, as an argument on the Protectionist side, but any such argument is simply fallacious. ' It is true that tl.e Government of the United States has m; intained a stringent Protective policy as regards all commodities imported from foreign parts, but it is very important to bear m mind that within the limits of the Great Itepublic itself there is the most complete and unconditional Freetrade. It should also be said that m consequence of their tremenduous natural jadvantages of virgin soil and developing capabilities extending over millions of acres, and inviting a steady influx of population, the citizens of the United States have not yet found out how much they are weighted m reality by a Protective policy. It would Ipt be too much to put the case m this

way: that the United States have prospered m spite of, not because of, their advocacy of this conservative nostrum. There is one other consideration which must not be overlooked, and when we have called attention to.it \re shall bring this article to a close, intending to return to the subject m future issues. The truth is that we rely far too much hi New Zealand on a Protective tariff for the purpose of raising revenue. This we take to be a complete misconception of the object of Protection; and until we can get our Government to realise that revenueis not to be raised legitimately, hi such a way, we shall be far from achieving' the end desired by the promoters of th^ recent meeting ha Christchurch.