SOMETHING ON PROTECTION.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXVII, Issue 8163, 1 July 1895, Page 3

SOMETHING ON PROTECTION.

(To the Editor.) gjn —''Take the duties off the necessaries of life " is an expression often used by freetraders, and'l see has already been used in the House by the mover of the Address-in-Reply, wherein he ex. presses the hopo that any alteration in the tariff will be as quoted above, Thoso who uso such an .expression must have a confused notion that it will reduce the cost of living and increase the comforts of tho masses generally. It is an absurd

proposition, because it assumes au utter impossibility Ib assumes that we can reduce the'necessaries of life without reducing the waee< of all men, employers and employed alike, because nearly all are engaged in producing the necessaries of life. " What avethose necessaries P" They are generally considered to bo the food rfquisito for our existence. But this is not enough, as clothing is also a necessary of life, Blankets to sleep in are moro a necessity than sugar and lea. Boots to wear and houses to livo in are

necessaries of life. These and many other things a're' direct necessities, and there is scarcely an industry but is engaged either directly or indirectly in the production of those necessaries. The bushtnen ond the sawyers ore engaged in getting timber for our houses, The agriculturist ploughs and cultivates his land for the production of food and clothing, and agricultural implpments qf all sorts are required for such cultivation. Leather manufacturers are required before we ran get boots to wear, and ninny o:her instances might be given to show that the majority of, our people are encaged in the production of the necessaries of life. That being so, the expression, "lake the duties off the necessaries of life," is intended to mean, reduce the price of them, Tn other words it is simply saying reduce the wages of all men all round.' Now, if any aspiring candidate for Parliamentary honours, were to stand up before his constituents and say I want to see the necessaries of life reduced so that you can live cheap and have plenty, he would bo applauded to the echo. But should ho say (which is but one step further removed) I .wish to see all jour wages reduced to the lowest he would moat likely be hissed and hooted. Tet both sentences mean ono ond the same thing, and possibly but few of his hearers or even thejeandidate himself has given the subject sufficient thought to enable them to see that such is the case. Yet it is so. I cannot altogether blame the people for not having thought the matter out, 'Tis like a sum in arithmetic, it wants working out till we arrive at a correct answer. We have been living in a false position and allowing others to tofc up the sums for us, and we have never cheoked them to see that they are correct. We have drifted into a careless way of. allowing n few glib tongued men do the hinkirig (I beg pardon) talking, for us and we tako it for gospel. Besides we have shoals of newspapers ■that are supposed to be the public exponents of all mattprs affecting our welfare, yet many of them never miss an opportunity of having a hit at import duties as pressing heavily upon the working man, when in reality they are meant to ond do assist him. The late Henry Clay, one of America's, most emineut statesmen, said, "So long as protective duties are not prohibitory, they ore not a tax on consumers, but they diminish prices, and when the duties are prohibitory, only because of domestic competition, they' a.re still not taxes on consumers, but reduce prices." I hope to see the day when a wave of protection will set in, when no man who desired the confidence of the people would dare to use the expression, " lake the duties off the necessaries of life." Wβ have a grand country, a glorious climate, and we ought a,H to be prosperous and happy but we have sadly mismanaged things. We have seut too many talkers to the Honse and 100 few thinkers, with the result that our Government is continually menaced with the unemployed difficulty. Tho few in work aro taxed to find work for those out of it. We throw them out of work by employing foreigners, in their stead. We subsidise steamers to bring iu manufactured wares of all descriptions that our own people ought to be em» ployed at. Those subsidies aro paid for out of the people's pockets. Ourownpeoplo are nob only in their various industries, but are compelled to subscribe towards the of foreigners, and bring their wares into open competition with our own. This is surely a vory suicidal policy, and its evil effects have so many ramifications that it would take too long a letter co point out now, (I may return to this por? tion agaiii). Let me lake up the thread of tho arguments I began; There was o, time when it was both wise and neoossary to import flour, tho men had to be fed while they were building our first flour

mill. But suppose wo were to import all the flour wo require now, which wo could easily d •, what is to become of al) those engaged in that industry from the sowing of the wheat till it leaves the baker's bands. There was nlso a time when it was wiso and necessary to im-

port onr timber. A few houses were wanted to shelter the men, and possibly somo for the erection of the first sawmill. But suppose we import all the timber wo require now, it can bo done, what will wo do with all the men engaged in that industry P Of ( suppose we import all the bootswe require, it can be done, and is done largely now. If it is right to import a portion, it would be equally right to import tho whole. Where then would all our bootmakers nnd factory hands boP Eolio answjva where P R. N. Smith.