FREE TRADE v. PROTECTION.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18345, 3 June 1931, Page 9

FREE TRADE v. PROTECTION.

(To the Editor.) Dear Sir,—ln a recent letter “Nosey” states that the legal profession is “one of the most highlyprotected means of 'earning a living with scale charges for everything, claimed by the most incapable members equally with the more competent.” In passing I would observe: (a) That a great deal of the work of the legal profession is not subject to scale charges,” (b) that scale charges are at least as much in the interests of the client as of the solicitor; and (c) wherever goods or services satisfy a given standard in trade or anywhere else—the competent receive the same return as the incompetent, “Nosey” further asks why he should not be able to call tenders for the conduct of an action. I have not examined the question, but personally I know of no legal reason why he should not do so. If he has time to prepare them I would be interested to see a sample set of plans and specifications, for such an action. These questions, however, are incidental to “Nosey s contention which is substantially that I cannot be a genuine Free Trader as a member of a “highly-protected profession. The essence of the case for free trade consists in this: the protectionist obtains a tariff for the purpose of limiting or shut Ling out opposition and then under this socalled “protection” he raises his prices—charging more for his goods or services than he would otherwise be able to dbtain. Protection of this kind may be against either foreign competition or local competition, the former being the typical case. I wi apply the test of foreign competition to the solicitor. Supposing that a Bolshevik agency began to sell in New Zealand sample wills at one penny each or offered to supply legal advice at 6d per subject. These services, If satisfactory to the public, would presumably largely put the legal profession out of business, and in my opinion they should not be entitled to any "protection” by law against such competition. No man, has a prescriptive right to be maintained toy the community in the job he has chosen. This, I think, makes clear my attitude on foreign competition against which I am not aware that the legal profession has protestion of any kind. As regards internal competition I would be glad if “Nosey” would set out more fully the details of all “protection” enjoyed by it, when I will reply to him.—l am, etc., DOUGLAS SEYMOUR. Hamilton, June 1, 1931.