[t. DANKS.

L—9.

20

tbnt printed list, by Is. 6d. per disc if you will put on a duty of 6s. a disc, it means that we will reduce our price for a 6 ft. disc harrow by 18s.; and the American price being the same as ours, it will mean a similar reduction of the American article also. Is that what you meant? 28. Mr. Alison (to Mr. Cooper).] What you contend is that if you reduce your price the American people will have to reduce theirs too. What I want to know is this: What are the relative prices of the local manufacturer and the trust for the same implement? —For a 6 ft. dis<; harrow the American firm's price is £13 10s., and the local manufacturers' price is £13 10s. For a 7 ft. disc harrow the prices are £14 10s. and £14 10s. Where the machines are alike the prices are very much alike. 29. Mr. Fisher.] But the terms are different?— Yes. 30. Mr. Ahson.] You suggest that no duty be imposed on agricultural implements manufactured in England ? —Yes. 31. I understood one of the deputation—l think it was Mr. Duncan—to say that agricultural implements with regard to which you are asking for assistance are chiefly made in Canada 1 Mr. Duncan: I did not say that. 32. Mr. Alison (to Mr. Duncan).] Are they chiefly manufactured in Canada?— That is harvesting machinery. Mr. Dawe: We do not wish you to leave out Canada. The trust have opened a large factory in Canada. They used to manufacture all their output in Chicago, but in order to avoid paying duty on goods sent to Canada they have started a factory in Canada. It is against American and Canadian manufacturers that we are asking for a duty. 33. Mr. Alison (to Mr. Dawe).] You are aware that Canada is a part of the British Empire? Yes; but Canada has the door shut to British manufacturers, has she not? Mr. Aitken: The Canadian Government have given a preferential tariff. Mr. Dawe: On some goods. 34. Mr. Alison (to Mr. Dawe).] Do you think, then, seeing that Canada is part of the British Empire, that it is desirable we in New Zealand should place a prohibitory tariff upon goods manufactured in Canada? —I certainly do. I think we should protect our local industries as far as it is possible for us to do so. 35. Then, if Canada reciprocated and placed a duty upon goods imported from New Zealand, would you consider that right? —They do not take anything much from us. 36. 1 think you will find there is a very considerable quantity of goods sent to Canada from New Zealand? —A little wool and flax, and things of that sort, but nothing much. If these American people would come here alongside of us and manufacture in the colony under equal conditions, then the thing would be all right. 37. Would you consider it right to impose the same duty upon Australian-manufactured goods?—We do not get any machinery from Australia 38. Assuming that the manufacturers there sent here the implements in respect of which you are asking for protection now, would you consider it a proper course to put a duty on them? — We are rather outside of them. I suppose it would apply in exactly the same way as with Canada. We are simply asking for protection for ourselves. 39. But you are making an exception in favour of Great Britain? —There is a lot of stuff made in Canada. Of course, if we cannot get protection against Canada we shall have to be satisfied with it against the United States; but the trust have stepped over the border simply to get away from the duty. 40. Do you think that under tEe proposals you are submitting the farmers of this colony will be benefited, and not injured?—l think so, undoubtedly. 41. Mr. Ailken.] A statement has been made this morning which was made by the previous deputation, that the harvester which is sold at £80 in Australia sells at £140 in the Argentine. What evidence have you gentlemen that that, is the case? Is it only hearsay? Mr. Cooper: The statement can be verified by a reference to the evidence given before the Royal Commission in Australia which inquired into the tariff question. That evidence is on the table now. 42. Mr. Kirkbride.~\ Some member of the deputation made a statement to the effect that a little protection would have enabled Reid and Gray to continue making reapers-and-binders? Mr. Dawe: That is going back to twenty years ago. We had to pay duty at that time on the raw material that we used in the manufacture of the reapers-and-binders, and we had to give up the making of them. We could not compete. At that time reapers-and-binders used to sell for £55 or £60; this was twenty years ago, and conditions have considerably changed since then. 43. Mr. Eirkbride (to Mr. Dawe).] You knew the binder, I suppose, that Reid and Gra\ manufactured? —Yes, to some extent. I was there at the time they manufactured these binders. 44. Do you think that if a farmer had the choice between the McCormick machine and Reirl and Gray's he would prefer Reid and Gray's? —I heard it good many' comments on Reid and Gray's machine as being one of the best handled. They said it was a trifle heavy at that time, but the machine gave satisfaction as a reaper-and-binder. Now, machinery is much lighter. I think it quite possible the industry might have been conserved to New Zealand, but now we do not anticipate making these machines at all. 45. Do you not think it was the weight of the machine, as compared with the machines of American make, that caused it to fall into disuse?—l do not think that. 46. I should like to make sure that the deputation is not asking for any protection against English manufacturers ; is that so ? Mr. Trolove: That is so. We have stated that in several places. 47. Mr. Aitken (to Mr. Trolove).] By "England " you mean the United Kingdom?— Yes. 48. Great Britain and Ireland? —Yes. We make an important point of that —that implements from the United Kingdom should come in free.