The Waikato Argus. [PUBLISHED DAILY] A Guaranteed Circulation of Over 8500 Weekly. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1912.

Waikato Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5158, 15 November 1912, Page 2

The Waikato Argus. [PUBLISHED DAILY] A Guaranteed Circulation of Over 8500 Weekly. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1912.

It behoves the farming community | in this Dominion to note the movej raent which is taking place in the boot trade. This has been incited by the intention of Mr Fisher, Minister for Customs, to call a conference of those interested in the industry in all its branches. The other day Mr Lindsay, of Wellington, who may be credited with being one of the leaders in the trade, spoke very strongly against the Customs regulations. He characterised the present tariff as “stupid,” for the reason that it taxis hues not made in New Zealand, a.id thus makes cheap boots dear and dear boots cheap (in comparison). He added that the working man is a fool not to see this. The officials returns clearly prove that the tariff requires revision. During the ten years (1900-1910), taxation of boots rose from £42,000 to £72,000, or 64 per cent, and the proportion of footwear used by the people, made in the Dominion, fell from 73 to 70 per cent. During the decade over £622,000 was paid as duty on boots. In anticipation of the conference, the Operative Bootmakers’ Union called a special meeting and summed up the business by passing this resolution, ‘That this meeting urges the employees' representatives to oppose any further increase in the tariff on boots and shoes, believing that the present tariff on footwear is sufficiently high to allow manufacturers a fair margin of profit; and we also believe that high protection is useless in the boot industry while firms ate exporting all the best hides; and we consider that the solution would be arrived at if the Government were to impose an export duty on all hides leaving the Dominion.” We believe that the above resolution is the first of its kind that has been passed by the employees in any protected industry of this Dominion; but it only differs in words, which still spell as usual more protection to their industry. To impose an export tax upon hides would shift some of the burden of protection to the backs of the producers of hides— the farmers. Political economists are unanimous that to impose an export tax upon the natural products of a country is bad policy. What would be the effect of an export tax upon hides from New Zealand? The duty on the quantity we export would no doubt add an all but inappreciable sum to the cost of each pair of boots sent to the Dominion, and to this extent would be extra protection to the bootmakers. But how about the farmer, it is manifest that he would be poorer to the full amount of the export tax. It is easy to understand that the tanners cordially back the bootmakers in their suggestion; they want raw material and want it at as low a price as possible. When the tariff is about to be remodelled protectionists and export taxers must be carefully watched and kept within reasonable limits by the producers from the soil. It is possible to urge specious reasons for limited protection, but there is no word to be said for export duties.