The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1909. NATIONAL MONOPOLIES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2646, 30 October 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1909. NATIONAL MONOPOLIES.

It was certainly very peculiar treatment which was accorded the Bill for the Abolition of the Duty • op. Flour, when at was introduced by Mr.-A. W. Hogg in the .House of Representatives the other 'fright. ' Mr. Hogg introduced the measure with a supporting'speech, but'bn resuming his seat no one spoke for or against the Bill. Voting was consequently proceeded with, and the Bill was rejected by 39 votes to 21. A House that could spend the best part of a •fortnight discussing the useless Address-in-Reply—which could neither benefit nor hurt anyone—lacked either the time or the inclination to express an opinion upon a measure that, affeots every household iu the land. We do not sav that a lengthy discussion was necessary, hut in a House that usually seems to exist mainly for the purpose of talking, we might reasonably have looked for an expression of opinion representing the opponents as well as the supporters of the measure. As a matter of fact, there is a good deal more to he said for the Bill than there is for the majority bf the measures advocated by the member for Master ton. At the present time there is a duty, of £1 per ton on imported flour, and this amount goes directly to swell the price ;f bread. In return a few hundred workers are kept employed in flour mills. This is not value. Protection is right enough to a point, but the State must watch all the time and see that in some, form the community gets a satisfactory return for the penalty exacted from it in its capacity as consumer. The flour industry is one of those branches where the proper return is not forthcoming. The net result of the protection has been to make possible the continuation of a multiplicity of flour mills ostabished in the early days when wheat was low in value. There are at the present time four times as many flour mills in New Zealand as are needed, and dividends have to he found for all of them. These dividends are exacted by charging high prices for flour, and this can only be done with the assistance of the. £1 duty which keeps. Australian flour out. Moreover, to ensure that the dividends shall not be -too scanty, the millers _ have combined and formed an association, which fixes the price of flour throughout the Dominion. This in its turn is reflected in “fixed” prices for bread, and any baker who endeavors to sell to his customers at a lower price very soon finds himself the subject of a boycott, and unable to get flour from the mill. 1 But for the 20s duty this “fixing” of prices could not goon. With free competition, our millers would he compelled to arrange for milling on up-to-date lines, the superfluous concerns would have to close down, and bread would be cheaper. ' We believe in protection for New Zealand, but when, as in the present instance,, it only succeeds in bolstering up an industry that is being conducted upon extravagant lines and which is creating • a monopoly in regard to an article of necessary consumption, we claim that the duty should be removed or sound reasons given for its retention. While on the subject of national monopolies, it is gratifying to note that the House seems likely to take some action in regard to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, a huge monopoly which controls the bulk of the sugar trade of Australasia. This body, which has of late commenced to display some of the worst traits of the American trusts, has come to loggerheads with the Auckland Harbor Board and its position has consequently been brought before Parliament by Mr. Poole, the member for Auckland West. The line of possible action seems to be the establishment of the sugar beet industry in New Zealand, and we aro glad to note that the Premier is disposed to give all possible support to the propagation of this industry. It is sftid that parts of the Waikato district s-upply’ ideal conditions for growing sugar' beet, and the importance of the subject makes it well worth the serious attention of Parliament.

with consequent inconvenience to traffic. So long as the ‘work is conducted with reasonable , vigor, and the street left in good order, nO objection can be made, but it is in this -Jatter. respect that the local company has laid itself open to censure. Along the route of the trench that has just been covered a high' mound of earth, stones, and metal has been left. No effort lias apparently been .made to roll it down, the inference being that the ordinary traffic of the street will ultimately cause the mound to disappear. In the'course of twelve months possibly this result would come about, but in the meantime every vehicle passing over has to contribute its jolt to the levelling process, with danger to axle springs and discomfort to passengers. In fact, for the first few weeks tho heap of material \lelt lying on the road must inevitably form a source' of danger to those who pass along,, and cyclists suddenly striking the obstruction on a dark night will be fortunate if they escape without a nasty fall. We are aware that tho course followed in this, case is not peculiar to the Gisborne.Gas Company. It is the ;vay of gas monopolies in all towns, although we do not remember noting quite so glaring a case of abuse of privilege as is provided on Read’s Quay at the present time. Obviously the proper thing for- the company to do after filling up a trench is to roll the top sto as solid and smooth a sur-as.-possible, leaving it but a few fScbes above the level of the road, ;nd if the action of the weather and traffic should subsequently cause a subsidence, the workmen should return and fill it up again. Of course it is much easier to leave the former contents of the trench piled up in a heap, and allow time and traffic to do the rest, but the community surely has some rights in the matter of personal safety and convenience.