The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 1886. PROTECTION AND CHEAP RAILWAYS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1461, 30 January 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 1886. PROTECTION AND CHEAP RAILWAYS.

The following letter has been addressed to the principal papers in the South Island with a view of obtaining simultaneous publication for it m all of them : Sir,—ln view of a policy of Protection being adopted in this colony, I think it would be advisable to apply any sum raised from increased customs duties to reducing railway freights, i have thus abruptly laid bare the principle involved in the scheme to which 1 desire to draw public attention, in the hope that the genera! reader will find it tempting enough to road the whole of my letter. I am in favor of protecting native industry, but ini afraid that it will not be easy to get the majority to agree with my views. Townspeople will doubtless support Protection. Owners of town property will vote for it, because they know it would increase town population, and consequently the demand for house property; storekeepers, because it would increase their customers ; and artisans and laborers because it would increase their facilities for obtaining employment. Townspeople are intelligent enough to see all this, but I am afraid it would not be so easy to convince the rural population that they would reap equal benefits from a policy of Protection. The position, therefore, appears to be this : The townspeople want Protection ; the country people do not—and consequently there is a danger of an antagonistic feeling springing up between town and country on this point. Such antagonism as I have indicated might possibly involve both in a very serious struggle

for supremacy, and lead to such an undesirable condition of affairs as was witnessed a few years ago in Victoria. With the view of averting any such danger, I have formulated a scheme that will suit both parties and offer to each a substantial inducement to work harmoniously together. In my opinion to increase customs duties is not all we require to do to enable us to develops the indn.-tnal resources of the colony. The high charges made for the carriage of goods by rail are nearly as great a drawback to industrial development as competition with foreign imputations. To show how true this assertion is, I have only to point oat that some lime ago the Temuka Dairy Company forwarded a few hundreds weight of cheese to Brisbane, via Lyttelton, and it cost about £1 more to carry it by railway from Temuka to Lyttelton (ban it did to carry it from Lyttelton to Brisbane by water. This fact shows that it would be cheaper for Christchurch merchants to get their goods from any of the Australian Colonies than from Temuka, so far as freight is concerned, and that the high charges made by the railway for the carriage of goods are a very serious impediment to the success of industrial enterprises. Of course this must apply to the carriage of the products of the soil as well. Wool grown on estates in this district last season was carted a distance of twenty miles into Timaru, and more of it would have gone the same road only that the railway authorities reduced the freight. The wool carters also brought loads back from Timaru with them. It was (he same on the Albury line, and of course every one knows what has taken place between Invercargill and the Bluff. I have known sheep to have been driven from Temuka to Milton (in Otago) because it was cheaper than to scud them by rail. These facts show that what I may call rural indiutry is just as much handicapped by railway freight as manufacturing industry is by competition with foreign importations, and I consequently think that if Protection is given to one, relief ought to be given to the other. My proposal is therefore to increase the customs duties, and devote the revenue thus raised to lessening railway freight. I find that the average value of our imports for the last ten years is £7,609,426, and say tint £1,609,426 is free, we are left £6,000,000 on which we can impose a duly. Place a duty of 10 per cent, on that, and you get an annual revenue of £600,000. Now, turning to the railways I find they have cost about £12,000,000, on which wo pay interest at the rate of probably 5 per cent., which interest amounts to about £600,000 annually. An additional custom duty of 10 per cent, would therefore pay the interest on the money wo have sunk in the construction of our railways, and if it were devoted to that purpose we could then run the railways for what it would cost to work them. The total revenue the railways yielded in 1884 amounted to £1,045,712 13s lOd, which was the largest, by nearly £IOO,OOO, we have ever received from them. Take from this the £600,000 derived from the customs, and you will find that £445,712 is all that is required to be made up from freight soas to bring railway revenue up to its present standard. If therefore we reduce freights on the railway to half what they are at present, it will be sufficient to pay working expenses. In 1884, maintenance of permanent way, locomotives, and repairs of carriages and waggons, and the other expenses incidental to the working of the lines, amounted to £690,026. Half the revenue yielded by the railways in 1884 would amount to £522,856 or £167,170 less than working expenses, but I am convinced that the business on our railways would so increase that that sum, and more, would be made up, I am therefore of opinion that if we paid interest on the capital invested in our railways out of the increased customs duties, we could easily pay working expenses by running the railways at half the prices at present charged. The first question involved in this proposal probably is : Is 10 per cent, increase in the customs duties too much 1 Considering that it would be applied to reducing railway freights to one-half what they are at present, I do not think 10 per cent, would be too much at all. Another objection is that while the increase in the customs would affect everyone, there might be some who would derive no benefit from cheap railways. This is erroneous. They are very few who would not be benefited by a reduction in railway freight. For instance, people in Christchurch have to pay for the carriage of beef and mutton and other products from here to Christchurch, and people here have to pay freight on goods brought by local storekeepers from Christchurch merchants, It is not the storekeeper who pays, but his customers. This scheme would give a great impetus to native industry; it would be a great boon to farmers ; it would increase population, and would not press heavily on any one, because whatever hardships would be inflicted by increased customs duties would be more than doubly compensated for by cheap railways.—Yours, etc., J. M. Twomev, Temuka, January 29,1886. Next to a National Bank, this scheme appears to be the best calculated to promote the interests of all. There can be no doubt but that it would be a great boon to farmers and to all persons living in the country districts if the railways could be run at half the present rates. In fact, it is difficult to estimate the good it would do. We would find Christchurch and Dunedin buyers competitors at our local sales, and of course cheap railway freight would enable them to give higher prices for our products, It would result in adding considerably to the value of our goods, and ultimately bring back to us the prosperity which at present appears to have left us for ever. We commend this new scheme to the attention of our readers.