The Harvester Combine. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2689, 27 September 1905, Page 11

The Harvester Combine. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— Farmers may be thankful that th© question about the Harvester Combine has come to a point at the present moment. It may be safely assumed that nothing will be done in the matter just now. Mr Seddon would hesitate to impose a duty on agricultural machinery on the eve of a general election. The danger lies ahead. Next session such hesitation might disappear at the call of expediency. You, Sir, allude to the anomaly that, whereas parts of machines - are protected, machines are admitted free. I would suggest that explanation lies in the fact that afc- one time it was possible to make - such parts and castings locally, and to make them well, but that, through the operation of soirfe of "the more undesirable features of our labour legislation, this can no longer be done. I Quite possibly this explanation is incorrect, still it sounds a reasonable one. You say that, as a last resort, the manufacturers in New Zealand mig-ht rely on the patriotism of farmers. Yes, the patriotism oi the subiects of King Stork! Mr Hall, acting as spokesman for the agricultural implement makers, waited on members — -viz., Messrs Taylor, Ell, DftA-ey Bedford, Tanner, Arnold, and T. Mackenzie. (Why Mr T. Mackenzie?) In ! passing, be it well noted that Mr Taylor advocated a reduction in country representation, if necessary, to secure a prohibitive tariff. In connection with Mr Taylor's suggestion it is well to consider the position for a moment. The whole thing looks very I much as if the Harvester Combine was being skillfully used to prepare the way for an agitation in favour of increased protection. „ „ To return to Mr Hall, this gentleman ia very candid. He disclaims the usefulness of any protective tariff, even were sutfh to start on a 20 per cent, basis. Heasks for the prohibition of the importation of American machinery, but that parts of such should be admitted. As a reason for the necessity for this step Mr Hall emphasises the fact that in America every man is allowed to do his" best, and to work as hard as he can, whiSt here each may work as he pleases. Clearly America realises that to handicap merit is to dig a grave for ambition. - After interviewing the Premier, the deputation is reported 1 to have left to look for some country members, and, it is to do hoped, at the same time, for a saving sense of humour. If a tariff were placed on American machinery Canada remains. America in that case would do as she is doing now when occasion seems to require. She would cross the border and start works in Canada. If it were attempted to blacklist Canada those wiho sought to do so might just conceivably precipitate matters, and be taught what so few nowadays seem to realise— that responsibility is the price of freedom. Any agreement to sell over a term of years at a fixed rate is obviously valueless ; if this were not so the agreement might be equally well made with America. If outside competition were removed we should have the makings of a local combine. Two things should make us dread this: the knowledge of the way we farmers have been made to suffer in the past by the sweet reasonableness of labour legislation in the matter of Protection, and Mr Hall's naive admission that buyers could not look to manufacturers to accept a statutory limit to their earnings ! No one would wish to see the implement industry killed. It can be saved by the granting of a Government bonus. I for one would be glad to see such bonus, and so should all fair-minded people. The foregoing touches closely on the great question of Freetrade, which I do_ not propose to discuss here save to say this: No arguments sound more plausible, none are more false than those in favour of Protection." Politicians, from conviction, or more often from expedience, find it a very easy thing to preach the benefits arising" from Protection. The working man has been so schooled to look upon the employer as his enemy that he cannot entertain proposals set forth in all honesty T)y the employer for his employees. How can he do so when he is to receive less wages? The thing is preposterous! It is so easy for expediency to magnify the absurdity of the proposition and to discount the honesty of the ss&pxoyer. It would astonish the worker to know that his fellow-worker in a Freetrade country is better clothed, better fed, and has a more, comfortable" home at less than half his wage. It is no part of a professional Proj teotionist's duty to point out that this L halving of the wage-sheet means dpubling the employing power of capital. Can the fact be brought before the men of New 7/fialand? I think so. I would suggest £h« formation of a Freetrade Association and I the engaging of certain space at the iorth* coming Ohristchurch Exhibition. Two model homes for 'working men should be built and fully furnished from roof to basement — the one would represent the Free-* trade, the other the Protectionist, side of 1 the question,— a cardinal point to be the display of aggregate and itemised cost. Two shops should be built — one to contain every article likely to be bought by the •average man marked at Freetrade prices, the other to contain the same articles at our present tariff prices. To take a small case in the food used by us, those who

know no better are wont to think our locally-manufactured tinned meats the best of their kind. Let them see the opened tins of meat from other countries side by side with our makes, and they will realise what an improvement can be effected by the use of more lengthy processes and the expenditure of greater labour. Such an exhibit, if not immediately convincing to the city jvqrker, should at least teach tho country visitor, after one inspection, the worthlessness of party politics and the overwhelming importance of his duty to himself, his home, and the comfort and happiness of his family. — I am, oto., H. Bucklaxd.

Kiatoa, September 19.

Ihe gentle pursuit of "snow-dropping (si rtpping clothes lines) is recrudescent in Wellington. At present the police are making inquiries. j The director of Lincoln College told a story a few days ago apropos the question j of forcing studente to go to church. In | one agricultural college he had known the j students were collected in a large waggon on 1 Sundava and driven into a neighbouring ; townsliip to church. On leaving the wag- j gon they were supposed to go to the j churches of the several denominations they j favoured, and all went well until it, was discovered that three of the students went off to play cards every Sunday. The blow to the management of the institution was a severe one, and the result was the abolition of th© rule making church-going compulsory. " ' "