PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2456, 10 April 1901, Page 67

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

And so another page in the history of the British Empire is 'being written, for the Federal Parliaments of Australia are now elected. The page will be finished when- the Parliaments meet in their temporary place of abode, the Melbourne Exhibition buildings, when the opening ceremony will be graced with the presence of notables from the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall — they no longer appear to be known as "The Yorks " — downwards.

The Witness this week will give you full cablegrams about the elections, and you will .see that the battle raged round the question of whether the Commomvealth should declare for Freetrade or Protection, and, 'by a small majority it would appear that Protection has gained the day. In Melbourne the Freetrade Argus ran its candidates for dear life, and the Age championed the Protectionist cause, and, like the Argus, published pattern voting papers for the guidance of the benighted or puzzled electors. The Argus — it used to refer to the Age as Ananias — publishes a very effective cartoon showing the blighting influence of Protection, and the 'burden it places upon the country population. It is headed "The High Tariff Handicap," and under it is, "Hemmed in all Round,"' "Duties, Duties Everywhere." The central figure of the cartoon is a fine stalwart man, without coat or waistcoat. His hat is marked 2s 6d each — the figures represent the amount of duty ; his shirt, 35 per cent. ; trousers, 35 per cent., and boots 5s a pair. Around him are illustrations. Portable engines 3s in the £ ; churns, 5s in the £ ; barbed wire, £3 a ton ; milk dishes, 6s in the £ ; tobacco, 3s in the £ ; waggons, £12 each ; binder twine, 8s a cwt; harness, 6s in the £, and so on. Then to drive home this pictorial convincer, there is an imaginary chat appended called " The Farmer's Perplexity." There is the usual argument that Protection increases cost, a statement as often denied by Piotectionists as it is advanced by the opposite school ; and the conversation between the farmer and the Freetrader is reproduced by the former when he gets home, after which the following dialogue takes place between him and his wife : — "Why, then, are the duties put on?" '"To make you buy in the home [meaning manufacturing in Victoria] markets "

" Well, I have been Uunking about that home market, and about moro coming to the home, and to the children, and to me if there were no 55 per cents. You &aid our ■wheat goe"} to England"

"Yes."

" Well, then, if the Government does not interfere when you sell to Ike Englishman,

why should it interfere when you buy from him? "

Now, we in New Zealand are as interested in this question as any of the Australian States, and must do the be.st we can to work the problem out for ourselves if we remain outside the Federation, or* as one of its units if we enter it ; and it seems to me that Protectionists work for town artisans and ignore those who should be studied quite as much, if not more so, the backbone of any country, especially a newly-established one — I mean those sc-ttled on the land. If industries in and around towns need protection irom what is called the pauper populatiowof the crowded cities of the countries devoted to manufacturing, surely the dairymen, farmers and squatters of Australia and New Zealand who have to compete in the English markets against the cheap labour of India, the x^rgentine, and Russia; in the production of wheat ; and against the cheaper labour and less transit charges of the Danes and Dutch and other Continentals supplying the same markets with farm and dairy produce, ought to have some protection in, say, a bonus on exports? As a townsman I would, of course, oppose such a policy ; but no more than I oppose Protection, as it is generally understood.

In the Age, the arguments given in favour of Protection are (a) capital is guaranteed fair remuneration, (b) labour having a high standard of comfort is protected against labour having a much lower standard, and (c) Protection eventually cheapens the articles protected.

As regards the first, in any country with a stable Government, capital can take care of itself ; and as Protection limits competition, capital has greater opportunities to combine and raise prices. Dunedin furnishes more _ than one example of this; while the United States, which almost piolubits imports on most protected lines, is the home of iniquitous combines. Then comes the question of wages for the labourer. It seems -to me — and I suppose I may be allowed to call myself an average thinker, reader, and observer — that wages are no higher in protected industries than in others, nor in protected countries than in Freetrade. The figures brought out by the discussion in the Australian papers, as far as I have read them, seem to show that the standard of comfort is just as high in New South Wales as in Victoria, and the purchasing power of wages just as great. A.s to tho third point, prices show most emphatically one of two things, (a) either that no Piotection has been needed, or (b) that tho^e living in a protected country sell at a loss when exporting to a Freetrade country. Articles made "in Melbourne pre sent to Sydney, and in spite of the cost of transit compete there against Sydney-made articles, or articles made in Europe or elsewhere Now if Melbourne manufactures are sold in Sydney at a less price than in Melbourne they must be sold for le«s profit there, or at a loss; if the former why not sell at the same price in Melbourne as in Sydney?— for if a profit is made in Sydney. that is a clear proof that Protection isn't needed; and if the latier, it seems that the Protectionist is paying two profits and costs of transit. — the one profit on goods consumed in Vic+orii, the other to make up for los&es made by elsewhere, and the freights and commissions incidental to exports.

I didn't mean to write so much on thi" topic, but it gre-.r, and I might just as well draw attention to another point or two. The Protectionists say that when production ovei takes consumption it does not affect the cost. Now. this isn't true Say that a pair of boots cost me 10s under Freetrade, under a protective duty of 5s a pair the cost is laised to 15s : but at this price foreign manufacturers cease to export because they cannot compete But this doesn't brincr back Ihe cost of the boots to 10s. If the 5s duty is required to make the industry pay, then the locallvmade boots -cannot be sold under the 15s except at a loss. Here is another point. I nive you the figures. They relate to number of population to the square mile : — Year. Victona. N.S W. 1871 w w >.. •• 8.21 1.62 1881 «. „ „ .. 981 242 1891 12.98 3 65 1899 13.23 4.34 Now, the Age reasons these figures out this way :—ln: — In 1871 Victoria was. 6.69 per square mile in advance of New South Wales ; while in 1899 she was 8.89 in advance, a gain of 2.19. This reasoning seems absurd to me. I should work them out this way : In 1871 the population of Victoria was more than five times as great to the square mile as that of New South Wales ; but 111 1899 the increase in New South Wales had been c o much greater in proportion that the population per square mile in Victoria ■w as now only three times as great. Put another way : New South Wales has increased over 160 cent., while Victoria's ad-

vance is less than 62 per cent. A mo ment's cons-deration viU show that at tin same rate New South Wales will soon b< as densely populated as, Vuloria — a, proc that Freetrade is the better policy of th< two, if it means anything at all, as far a; the two policies are concerned

Think the matter out, and if you wish, pull my arguments to piecss Ths question cannot be discussed too w.delv.