Hon. Ed. Blake on protection & free trade [microform]

[No. 1] Hon. Ed. Blake on Protection & Free Trade. (From the Canadian Manufacturer. ) E1icuT years and three months ago a considerable majority of the eople of Canada declared themselves to be in favor of a National Polley of Protection, not only for Home Manufactures, but for Home Production generally. Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, the former leader of the Reform party, has been a pronounced Free Trader all his life, and his views on the trade question have never been matter of doubt or dispute with anybody. Ever since Mr. Blake became - ieader the public have felt greatly interested to know what his views are on the same question’ but somehow or other the same certainty has never been obtained as with regard to Mr. Mackenzie, It was not considered extraordinary that Mr. Blake, being a lawyer, should speak mostly on questions political and constitutional, rather than on questions economical, leaving the latter to be dealt with by an ex-Minister of Finance--Sir Richard Cartwright. At all eventa it is a fact that he spoke very litile on questions of the latter kind ; and it is another fact that even since 1873 much uncertainty as to what his views on commercial policy were, has prevailed. The most definite statement the public have yet had from him was made on the oecasion of the meeting of his supporters which was held in Toronto some weeks ago. What he said then has alread appeared in our columns, having been taken from the Globe's f report: but let us repeat. He said:— “T desire to refer very briefly to the attitude of the Liberal part; upon the question of the tariff’ It has been grossly misrepresente In 1882 I stated my views upon that subject in the most formal manner, by means of the address I issued to the electors of West Durham as a manifesto to the country: by the principles then laid down I still abide. I said:— ; “*You know well that I do not approve of needless restrictions on our liberty of exchanging what we have for what we want, and do uot see that any substantial application of the restrictive princi- ple has been or can be, made in favor of the great interests of the mechanic, the laborer, the farmer, the lumberman, the shipbuilder, or the fisherman. But you know also that I have fully recognized the fact that we are obliged to raise yearly a great sum, made ANE atlas greater by the obligations imposed on us by this Government; and that.we must continue to provide this yearly sum mainly by import * duties, iaid to a great extent on goods similar to those which can be 2-//AT7 Mo.{/-) 2 raanufactured here ; and that it results as a necessary incident of our settled fiscal system, that there must be a large, and as I believe, in the view of moderate protectionists,an ample advantage to the home manufacturer. “*Qur adversaries wish to present to you an issue as between the present tariff and absolute Free Trade. “«That is not the true issue. “Free Trade is, as I have repeatedly explained, for :s impossible; and the issue is whether the present tariff is perfect, or defective and unjust. “*T believe it to be in some important respects defective and unjust. “«We expressed our views last session in four motions, which declare that articles of such prime necessity as fuel and breadstuffs should be free; that the sugar duties should be so adjusted as to relieve the consumer from some part of the enormous extra price he is now liable to pay to a few refiners; that the exorbitant and unequa! duties on the lower grades of cottons and woollens should be so changed as to make thein fairer to the masses, who now pay on the cheapest goods taxes about twice as great in proportion as those which the rich pay on the finest goods; and that the duties on such materials as iron, which is in universal use, should be re- duced so as to enable the home manufacturer, to whom it is a raw material, to produce a cheaper article for the benefit of his home consu.ner and the encouragement of his foreign trade. “<T believe that by changes of the character IT have indicated monopoly and extravagant prices would be checked, a greater measure of fair play and justice to all classes would be secured, and the burden of taxation would be better adjusted to the capacity of the people who are to pay. Depend upon it, a day will come when by sharp and bitter experience we shall learn the truth ; and many who even now applaud will then condemn these particular incideuts of the tariff.’ ” Mr. Blake’s repetition is of more importance than his original utterance, and that for a reason which is universally recognized. To re-affirm a thing, after an interval of time with its changes and events has passed, is to imply that your views have not changed on the matter in question, and that these views of yours are even more decided now than they were before. Mr. Blake gives us to understand that his mind is made up on the question of Protection or Free Trade, and has been for some years back. He admits absolute Free Trade to be impossible, but he wants a reform of the tariff And his allusion to “four motions” pressed in the House by his party ‘in 1882, implies that the party was with him then, and is with him still. Both leader and party, therefore, are responsible for the posit:on assumed. (1) In 8 First, the coal-tax and the bread-tax, so-called. As to the former our reply is that the price of coal to Canadian consumers would not fall five cents per ton were coal made free to-morrow. The price of coal is fixed by the great American coal-carrying railway com- panies, and they actually favor Canada at the expense of their own people, in order to hold the Canadian trade, which they deem to be of great and yearly-increasing value. These companies fix, not merely the price at which they will sell to wholesale buyers, but also the price at which it must be sold to retail buyers on both sides of the border. Then the alleged coal-tax does not touch the farmers at all, a point that is never alluded to in Free Trade speeches. Mr. Blake and his friends say in one breath that the “ bread-tax ” raises the price of the poor man’s loaf, and in the next that it does not give the farmer a cent more for his wheat. Until they reconcile these two contradictory statements they scarcely deserve a civil answer. But, even supposing the “poor man’s loaf” argument to have had some force years ago, it surely has none now, when our surplus of wheat exported is on the eve of such an enormous ex- age as the settlement of the great North-west is sure to give it. e Liverpool price must rule this market—so say Mr. Blake’s lieutenants in the House, also the Globe. How then can the price here be raised by any duty that we may impose ? When to the former European and American production of refined sugar a new Canadian production of the same article is added, the tendency is to make the article cheaper, not dearer. Increase of supply certainly operates to lower prices, not to raise them. But if the principle of Protection were thoroughly carried out as regards sugar, there would not be a cent of revenue froin that article at all. ane or low grades would be admitted free, while on refined sugar the duties would be prohibitory. But revenue necessities forbid, so we are told by those who ought to know. Dare Mi. Blake say that if he were in power he could do without any revenue at all from sugar, as they do in England ? A country just beginning to create home manufactures must begin with the coarser fabrics, and progress toward the production of finer goods as best it can. But it is a huge blunder to suppose that the consul; -r always pays all the duty. Here is a case in point. The American duties ou cloths for men’s wear are about three times the Canadian duties. And yet a suit of clothes of ordinary quality can to-day be purchased in Buffalo or Detroit as cheaply as in Toronto. Both the American cites named do a large business in selling clothing to Canadian customers. Mr. Blake and his friends have made this much pretty lain, that their strategy is to kill the National Polle by ches. The Canadian people are not likely ¢<e give them na seamen { |