THE TARIFF QUESTION

Otago Witness, Issue 2785, 31 July 1907, Page 66

THE TARIFF QUESTION

Ex P. J. O'Regah.

SUCCESS OF FREETRADE*

ir. In spite, of the Babel of opinions respecting economic questions, the truths of political economy may be easily recognised tay anyone who will think. No matter tow strong the tide of popular opinion may run in favour of Protection, for instance, there is always a determined and fctelligent minority who are resolutely opposed to it, and determined to ♦abolish it if possible. Every economio injustice xesembles Protection in this respect—that no matter what vested intersts may profit by it, no matter how powerful the iniuences in its favour, the more thoughtful section of the- community is continuously •pposed to it. Protection had the support of immense interests in Great Britain—the interests identified with "Sir John" and "his Grace" and the. House of Lords. Yet there were always able and influential men who agitated for its abolition, until finally the Corn Laws and the paper- duties were swept away. The same that maintained Protection so long in England •re in existence to-day, and they are ever Teady to revive it again if possible. The benefits of Freetrade, however, have during 60 years created • powerful interest* in its favour. The merchant who derives his income from France, the Argentine, or Russia is not disposed to impair his position, for he naturally realises that a foreigner's custom i« as good to him as an. •Australian's or a Canadian's. The worker who depends on his wages is equally indisposed to tax his food, more especially tohen he sees his old enemy, the landlord, endeavouring to do so. Hence it is that the conservatism of human nature, irritating 1 and dangerous as it is when it lulls into apathy a multitude careless of ite •rights, becomes transmuted, under conditions of economic justice, into the (neatest safeguard of popular liberty and (uman progress. Selfish interests are never ■kble to enlist on their side the enthusiasm *hat carried Cobden and Bright to victory, or that enabled Lincoln to break the Shackles from the limbs of the American negro. Hence it ifl that we may regard |he work of these great men as permanent •onievements in human history. Hence ft is that Freetrade in Britain is no longer ft party question in the *¥eal sense, 6ince representative men of all panties unite in its defence. In the days of Filmer there were people who seriously believed in the divine right of kings; but it is now by ■H parties regarded as a truism that the sovereignty of any State rests in the people alone, and posterity regards with contempt the puerile faith of the nonjurbrs. So also, although in the time of Cobden parties differed strongly as to the wisdom of freedom of trade, the question k now, like gravitation, treated as a Hatter beyond the pale of controversy, and s Protectionist is very properly viewed in very much the same light as a Bat earth advocate. Nothing has proved the truth of the foregoing so much as Mr Chamberlain's Anal agitation. Colonial advocates of Protection, particularly those of them to tie. found in the ranks of the Labour parties, will find it difficult to explain the Attitude of the British worker towards those principles of taxation and finance associated with the memory of Cobden and Bright. There are in England Socialists like Messrs Hyndman and Keir Hardie Who sneer at Cobden as a capitalist. Yet $hey freely pledge themselves to defend Ihe principles which Cobden helped to Apply. Among the 50 odd Labour members in the House of Commons dhe-re is not one Protectionist, nor has Mr Chamalthough he made a special bid for their support by promising them oldage pensions if they assisted him in broadening the basis of taxation, been able to find a single supporter among British grades unionists. Yet, if there be any broth in Protection- at all, Britain is preeminently a country in which it should Moceed. Britain occupies practically a central position in the midst of the earth's dry land. She is situated in olose gyroximity to the populous Continent of ]£ttrope, she is .four times nearer the great American continents than we are, and she la by no means remote from Asia and Africa. She is, according to Protective Ideas, exposed, therefore, to the full blast of competition. Yet, in spite of all this, and notwithstanding her open pSrte, she continues to prosper as no other country cloee. Protectionists.have a great deal to say about her "declining trade," her *'ruined industries," and her starving millions. All this, however, is mere assertion, devoid even of the semblance of ■upport in fact. Vague assertions are one feblng, but facts are quite another, and what are the facts in this case? I will •numerate a few of them: — (1) Britain has the largest Empire in the World, and her open-door policy, under which all nations are treated alike, makes ber Empire a powerful peace-making agency. Frenchmen or Russians may dislike her; but Frenchmen prefer appropriation of territory by her to that of any other nation, and for like reasons Russians prefer British expansion to Gertnan or French. Each nation feels that Great Britain will give them all a fair field and no favour. Herein lies the real •ecurity of the Empire. (2) Great Britain has the greatest foreign trade of any country in the world. (3) Great Britain's imports and exports

are greater than those of any other country in the world. (4) Great Britain's export of manufactured goods is greater than that of any other country in the world. (5) Great Britain is th« greatest shipbuilding country in the world. Two-thirds of the ships passing through the Suez Canal fly the British flag. Half the mercantile marine of the world is British. Britain ■Ws therefore the world's ocean carrier. America's oversea shipping barely equals the shipping on her inland lakes. (6) Great Britain has practically the monopoly of trade with her colonies, the goods they ' get from foreign countries being mainly those she does not produce. (7) The whole world is Great Britain's granary, and hence the price of foodstuffs there is practically constant, for her open ports enable her to rectify the dearth of one country from the abundance of the others. (8) With the exception of the United Sta-tes and her great colonies, wages are higher in Great Britain than anywhere else in the world, and her workers live more 'comfortably than in any Continental country. Reference to the Blue Book of Trade and Industry (Cd. 1761) shows the rates of wages in capital cities to be as follow in the following countries: — In the United States, 75s per week; in the United Kingdom, 425; in Germany, 245; in France, 36a. Other cities and towns : — In the United States, 69e 4d; in the United^ Kingdom, 365; in Germany, 22s 6d; in France, 22s lOd. Though wages are higher in America than in Great Britain, yet Great Britain is far ahead of the other countries. America's higher wages are mainly due to her vast areas of unoccupied territory and her cheaper land. If the States were populated in the came proportion as Great Britain, they would contain about r,200,000,000 people ! Notwithstanding her higher wages, however, the purchasing power of wages is greater in Great Britain than in America or anywhere else, consequent on her cheaper commodities. Tried by another test, the comparison between the two countries from the standpoint of labour is strongly in favour of Great Britain. America ifl pre-eminently the land of millionaires and trusts, and every millionaire is a Protectionist. In America a capitalist may hire armed ruffians to shoot strikers, and it ie a regular practice to proclaim martial law in the case of strikes. Trusts are unable to get a footing in Britain because of the invigorating blast of competition, which kills off unwholesome excrescences, • end there is a much better feeling between employer and employed than in America, and indeed than in most other countries. Now, let us glance briefly at the condition of labour in the " protected " countries of Europe. In Germany sausages made of horseflesh are a regular article of consumption, and dogflesh is growing in popular esteem. In the May number of the Review of Reviews Mr W. T. Stead has a notice of an article in the Eehana Moderna on the consumption of dogflesh in Germany, and the writer shows that among the poorer classes dog sausages are largely consumed ! In France^ also, horseflesh is consumed in krge quantities, and in Italy a labourer ie glad to get a baein of beans cooked in oil for his dinner. Another important test of the condition of labour is the hours worked per day. Tried by this test Great Britain easily ■ beats her competitors, including America, for the Blue Book above quoted shows that the hours are longest in Germany, I next in France, next in the United States, 1 and shortest of all in Great Britain. In , the Australasian colonies, which are really I not much more than sparsely-populated | settlements, ihe hours of labour are, of course, shorter still and the vrages higher; but we cannot in fairness compare New Zealand with her nLne persons to the square mile or Australia with her one to the square mile in comparison with Great j Britain with its dense population. I do not wish any reader to misunderstand me. lam not blind to the fact that there is much to be desired in connection with the social and economic condition of the British worker. I am not endeavouring to depict the condition of the British worker as the ideal condition of labour. But I do say that, whatever evils she Buffers from, none of them can be ascribed to her fißcal policy. fudging the condition of labour in Great Britain, not absolutely, but relatively, tlie verdict is overwhelmingly in her favour. Not an , evil can be pointed out as existent there which does not exist in a much more aggravated form in Protectionist countries. Add to this fact that the real strength of Protection in Great Britain is to be found among the landlords— those traditional enemies of popular freedom.^and that the working classes are Freetraders to a man, »nd the colonial worker who listens to the Protectionist secretary of his trade union, and who imagines that he would be starved with cheap goods under a policy of Freetrade, will realise that it is time he reconsidered his position. If he does so he will find that he is blind to his own and to his country's best interests in upholding a policy under which, his nominally high wages are -really made low, I that the Protectionist manufacturers who i use him at elections really pay no better j wages than those engaged in non-protected industries, and that indirect taxation means that the wealthier classes pay nothing like their share towards the upkeep of government. So far I have referred to our tariff as if it were really a Protective tariff. When we come to scrutinise it, however, we find

th*t there is really very little in it in accord with the professions of Protectionists. The cry of Protection has been, sedulously fostered to encourage the public to tolerate taxes which can be defended on no ground whatever, save the need for revenue. " I could understand Protectionists standing by a tariff framed according to their professed principles. I could understand a tariff under which duties were higher as against low-wage countries and lower as against higherwage countries. We are often told that the object of a tariff is to protect our gwn people against the cheap, labour of foreign countries. The people who indulge in this curious cant, however, do not really believe in it themselves. If they did we would find a differentiation made made between importations from Germany, Great Britain, America, or Australia. In reality we have very little foreign trade at all, and what we have is mainly with America, and I propose to show presently that in *he near future our trade with America must increase in spite of any tariff we may impose. What are we to say of the sincerity of men who talk of protecting our artisans against foreign competition when we know that the greiat bulk of our .trade is with Great Britain ? If we are as sincere in our desire to grant preference . to Great Britain, why do we exult in a surplus derived in the main from taxes on British goods? The more closely we examine the question the more apparent it becomes that there is nothing behind our Protectionist protestations but a background of insincerity. If after 30 years of popular education our democracy is to be deceived in this way, we • may well ask what hope is there for such a democracy.