AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND COMPETITION.

Progress, Volume I, Issue 4, 1 February 1906, Page 73

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND COMPETITION.

What is fair competition and what is unfair ? If this question could be settled, the trade and commerce of many countries would be benefited. But much must depend on circumstances. There is such a thing as " healthy " competition, which conduces to industrial progress, and brings the best to the front, both as to man and as to methods. Given a fair field and no favour, reasonable trade rivalry is not altogether a bad thing, but when some of the competitors are hopelessly handicapped from the start, then the contest cannot assuredly be called equitable. That the contest between British and American agricultural machinery in the colonies is hardly being carried on upon reasonable lines, evidences continue to accumulate. We have received from Mr. P. H. Evans, the secretary of the South Australian Chamber of Manufactures, Incorporated, cuttings from one of the Australian dailies — the Advertiser — dealing with the importations of harvesting machinery and other mechanism into that State. As far back as nearly a year ago that paper made special enquiries upon this matter, and the information then received in special interviews is worth recalling at the present time. Mr. C. D. Lennon, a prominent member of the Melbourne Chamber of Manufactures, stated some time back that " at every port of the Commonwealth foreign-made goods were arriving m shiploads. In Adelaide he had seen 250 copies of Australianinvented harvesters landed from New York, the freight on which was less than the freight from Melbourne to Adelaide/ Australian agricultural machinery manufacturers have pointed out that there has never been a really high tariff on machinery in South Australia. Probably 15 per cent, has been the highest, but in Victoria it went up to 60 per cent, on some lines. The protective tariff m South Australia has given way to a revenue tariff, and the outside duty is now about 15 per cent. They consider that the duty should be at least 25 per cent on certain lines to assist them to fight against the inrush of American goods. What (it is asked) can Australian manufacturers — who work under the eight hours' system, and don't believe in making slaves of their men — do against such competition ? With reference to the season before this the number of harvesters imported into South Australia from various outside sources was decidedly heavy. Reports make the total from 250 to 500 by one firm. The duty is 12^ per cent, on the invoice, but at what price are these invoiced ? From official information received it appears that harvesters have been invoiced at 2s 6d., plus 10 per cent., a total of £41 18s ad. The retail price to farmers in South Australia is about £80. Seed and manure drills are invoiced at from 10s to £16 16s Bd, and 15s plus 10 per cent. These drills are sold in South Australia at from £36 to £40. Another line which will affect the trade m South Australia is the importation of stump-jump ploughs. We understand that some were imported from Canada, and were exhibited at the last Adelaide show. Up to the present the effects are not greatly felt, but if these ploughs are invoiced on the same basis as harvesters and drills they would come into South Australia at £\o. These ploughs weigh about 8J- to ro cwt., and are sold at to £22 m South Australia. The outcome of the agitation in the Australian Commonwealth will be awaited with much interest by New Zealand and British machinery manufacturers alike, for the latter are no strangers to keen competition from Transatlantic sources, and, therefore, have sympathy with the former. .