9

A—4

144. Then, it is not a question of the permanent trade, but where the highest market is ?— Yes; but Australia is the only permanent market we have. 145. Looking at the future, is there a prospect of the South African markets being open to New Zealand?—l could not speak on what the prospect would be. Because they have a large country and a small population, I do not think it would be a permanent market. 146. Then, it is useless to subsidise steamers to open up trade there. Or are they likely to grow themselves oats to such an extent as to interfere with our shipments ?—I think they will; but I am only speaking from hearsay. 147. Mr. Beauchamp.] There is no duty on oats in New South Wales, and that is the chief reason why you used that colony as a dumping-ground for your surplus oats ?—They have taken them nearly all. If it had not been for the South African market it would not have paid to have grown oats the last two years, because New South Wales would not have taken enough. Australia has been able to supply a sufficient quantity for her domestic use. 148. Therefore it is not likely to be a permanent market ?—No. To make it pay to grow oats in Australia they would have to have a duty against us always. 149. Is it not due to the adverse climatic conditions existing in Australia?— Partly. 150. Mr. Leys.) Do I understand you to say that the export to Australia is one-sixth the production of this district ?—One-sixth of the total trade of New Zealand is done with Australia. 151. Is there not a very large market for oats in other parts of New Zealand?— Yes ; but it does not absorb the whole of our surplus. The North Island is every year growing a larger quantity of oats itself. If Australia were closed to us we would have to reduce the quantity we are growing. 152. I suppose other crops could be found equally profitable ? —No. Otago and Southland are better suited for growing oats than other grain-crops. We do no business in wheat and flour. 153. How would free-trade in New Zealand affect the wheat-growers and the flour-millers ?—I have not thought the matter over. 154. Hon. Major Steward.] Was not a considerable portion of the oats shipped last year to Sydney sent on to South Africa?—No; those oats went through Melbourne. 155. Then, practically the whole export through New South Wales was for her own consumption ?—Yes. 156. Mr. Luke.] Supposing Australia imposed a duty of 6d. per bushel on our oats, would it not pay to send them to London were we to obtain a permanent market ?—We cannot get a price in the London market that makes it pay for producing. 157. Hon. the Chairman.] You think it would not pay to export to other countries unless the trade could support a line of direct steamers ? —We would want direct communication to make a permanent trade. 158. Do you not think it would pay the Government to proceed in that direction—in the interests of farmers, to subsidise a line of steamers to come to New Zealand—rather than for New Zealand to join the Federation ?—Before it would pay to subsidise the steamers you would first want a permanent market that would take a sufficient quantity to fill the steamers, and I do not think South Africa would do that. 159. Why should not New Zealand export to the same markets as Australia does, if these lines of steamers were subsidised to come on to New Zealand ?—To make it pay the steamers would have to get a very large quantity, and would have to go to nearly every port of New Zealand to make up a cargo. Ido not think they would get sufficient inducement to warrant them coming here. 160. Mr. Beauchamp.] But supposing there are two or three lines of steamers trading from Australia to South Africa, and it is by these steamers that a large quantity of our produce has been re-exported to South Africa —in the same way, why should not a line of steamers run from here to South Africa, and land our produce there direct ?—lt might be made to pay. William Arthur Moeris examined. (No. 3.) 161. Hon. the Chairman.] What are you?—A bootmaker. I represent not only the bootmakers, but the Amalgamated Society of Eailway Servants and the butchers, nearly four hundred men. 162. Have you considered how federation might affect the local industries of New Zealand ? Yes. My objection to federation is twofold —from the political and industrial standpoints. We have here a Government that possesses the confidence of the people, and if there were occasions to consider any matter from a wide colonial standpoint the Government could do it just as well as if they were federated. If we were federated the questions would have to be looked at from the broad Commonwealth standpoint, and in such a case the individuality of this colony would be lost. From the political standpoint, I think we have everything to lose and nothing to gain by federation. I believe if we federated our local industries would be ruined, because the larger concerns on the other side will overwhelm our industries, and consequently our men will have to run after the factories where the work is, because the factories do not run after the men. I believe that the Australian manufacturers will be able to manufacture cheaper than we can here. I question very much whether the working-men would reap any benefit from the removal of the tariffs. We had. an object-lesson on that last session. £165,000 was knocked off the duties then with the idea that it would benefit the working-man, but I have never met one that had benefited to the extent of one halfpenny by that remission. I contend a protective duty is necessary against the Australians to assist our manufacturers, who had to build and equip their factories. 163. How do you think federation would affect the rate of wages in New Zealand ?—I believe it would be the same as in 1883 or 1885, when men had to go away to seek for work. 164. Then, both on industrial and political grounds you think it would be a bad thing for New Zealand to federate ?—I do. Some people seem to think that if we had federation there would be 2—A. 4.