THE TARIFF.

Otago Witness, Issue 875, 5 September 1868, Page 1

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 landled 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 is that, when the anomalies of the Tariff were under 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. It 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 wish to foster our commerce ; we have got a Tariff which subjects it to the most harassing restrictions, without affording anything in the Bhape of compensation. 'The 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 Protectionist alike condemn it, while the Government, 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 of the country, but those of a special class. The nervous and apologetic manner in 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 Councillors was imposed upon by the declaration. The grounds on which he asked for a revision were, the failure of the Tariff to promote the interests of the industrial classes ; but the only industrial class in who3e welfare Mr.. Holmes appears to be interested is the agriculturists. He complains, for instance, of the duty on spirits; and suggests that, by reducing the duty from 12s. a gallon to 9s. or 10s., and legalising distillation in the colony, we should ' discourage the illicit trade, and at the same time benefit agriculturists by giving them a better market for their barley.' The next complaint refers to the 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 of flour into any port on our coast free of duty, a New Zealand merchant must pay £1 per ton on all the flour he sends to Melbourne. Supposing, says Mr Holmes, j 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 on articles consumed by the farmers, or impose a duty which would place him on 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 mind. 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 tho colony — from [beet sugar to eggs and bacon — in the course of which he appears to endorse the bonusing system of our Provincial Council as applied to 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. We are not all farmers, but we are all consumers of breadstuffs ; and we are all of opinion that the prices of provisions are quite high enough already. But the labours of the Committee appointed by the Council to inquire into this matter will be beneficial, whatever the views of the Committee individually may be. In the words of the motion, their object will be to ■examine 'the practical effect of the Tariff on the commerce and industrial

Spurstiits of the people.' From such an investigation, if thoroughly carried out, we may expect disclosures vr hich will tend to hasten the reform of our taxation. When everybody is satisfied that the commerce of the country is struggling under unnecessary difficulties, and that the industrial pursuits of the people are hardly better off than their commerce, the action of the Legislature will probably be quickened. If the present rate of Customs duties is to be continued, we see no reason why 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 all means include in the list those articles which we can produce ourselves. We shall then derive some appreciable advantage from these duties ; we shall improve the position of the people and offer increased attractions for immigration. There is no wisdom in reducing the business of the country to the single item of importing. But on the other hand, if our Customs duties are merely emergency taxes to be 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. In this view of the matter^ we very much regret the action taken by Mr Holmfs ; 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 ia prepared to sanction a thorough Protectionist policy, well and good : wo shall then know whither we are steering, and the endeavor of Provincial Councils to bonus manufactures into existence, a3 well as such movements as those of Mr Holmes, will serve the purpose of initiating the new era. But we feel very certain that neither the Legislature, nor the most powerful interests in the Colony, are prepared to sanction that policy at all ; and we also feel certain that if it is ever carried out, it will be so only after many years of bitter dissension. It is beyond a doubt that manufactures cannot flourish in thi3 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 £1500 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 and of retail tradesmen in favor of cheap imported goods, to say nothing of a rate of wages three or four times greater than the rate in Great Britain. We say again : let us either announce our intention to establish protective duties for the encouragement of manufactures, or resolutely set our faces against insidious attempts to introduce Protection under the colour of Free Trade.