WJiliam Wi!Bon, .;,;;:!.~rt. 1504 50792. Do you know that if the malting in bond is allowed, there will have to be a separate apartment in every malt house that, nndertakes the malting in honcl, in which the malting <strong>of</strong> foreign barley will 12th liiay 1883. be carried on separate from the <strong>Victoria</strong>n barley, under the supervision <strong>of</strong> a Government locker, who would have to see that no evasion <strong>of</strong> the Customs took place. Are you aware <strong>of</strong> that ?-No, I do not know what arrangement they have. . 50793. Then you do not know what malting in bond is?-Yes, I have an idea. 50794. But, if you did not know that, you hr"ve no idea <strong>of</strong> what malting in bond is ?-I did not know the regulations under which they carry it out. 50795. What do you suppose malting in bond to be when you are .speaking <strong>of</strong> it~what is your idea <strong>of</strong> it ?-They are charged duty when the grain comes in, and when the malt goes out they get a drawback. 50796. That is a drawback regulation, not malting in bond at all. I would like to explain to yo11 and to the ot,her gentlemen present that there are these two modes proposell <strong>of</strong> dealing >Y1th this matter; the Robert Blrney, Esq., J.P .. l2tll May 1883. one is very different from the other. The law, as it :1t present stands, allows almost every kind <strong>of</strong> manufacture to be carried on with foreign articles, either in bond or by means <strong>of</strong> a drawback. Sometimes it is
1505 50807. Is that what you want to add to the evidence <strong>of</strong> previous witnesses ?-I will answer any question that is put to me. I do not want malting in bond. · 50808. So far I understand you ?-I understand malting in bond thoroughly welL I. did not hear ~U the evidence given. I only came in when Mr. Galbraith was being examined. I am agamst malting in bond, and I am against oats going out on drawback. I am a farmer since I was born, and to say that we cannot grow oats fit to make meal is an absurdity. 50809. By 1.Wr. Woods.-Are you aware that bonded goods go from Melbourne to Echuca ?-Yes, and are sent over the border there. 50810. And they go iu bond ?-I believe so. 50811. How do they go ?-I do not know-is there a Customs <strong>of</strong>ficer watching them? 50812. Do they go along with any other goods ?-I do not know; I suppose they go in the train. 50813. Do they go in the same trucks with any other goods? -I could not say <strong>of</strong> my own knowledge. . 50814. You are not aware that those goods that go through the colony to go across the Border are m a separate truck, locked up and sealed ?-No, I am not. . 50815. Exactly the same principle applies to malting in bond, the goods never mu at all ?-When we had malting in bond we did not get the full price for our barley. . 50816 . . BY. ~Wr. J1fwnro.-You are in favour <strong>of</strong> the duty remaining as it is ?-Mo~t decidedly I a~; I am a protectwmst. them. Why cannot these men go and live in New Zealand, and take their malt-houses w1th [The witness produced samples <strong>of</strong> grain gro·wn by him.] The witness withdrew. John Hurst, Esq., J.P., sworn and examined. 50817. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-A farmer. 50818. How many acres do you have in your holding ?-Two thousand. 50819. How many do you cultivate ?-Only 40 last year. 50820. You graze the rest ?-Y Eos. 50821. You heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witness ?-Yes. 50822. Will you state to the Commission what you wish to add to that evidence, please ?-Yes, I think I had better begin with the dairying, which is the principal industry that I follow. I object to the ~uty remaining on butter and cheese, I think it is very injurious to the trade, because on the du~y being Imposed on butter and cheese comin"' into this country. I think it caused duties to be placed on m other countries, and so impeded trade. Se~eral <strong>of</strong> the colonies have put on exactly the same duty as we have ourselves. 50823. By JJir. Longmore.-Had they their duties on before we had ?-No, we were the first to impose the duties, and after we imposed the duties they imposed the duties upon us. At the time we imposed the duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a lb., we were exporters <strong>of</strong> only 26,000 lbs. <strong>of</strong> butter per annum, and in 1881 we exported something like 2,000,000 lbs. within a very small fraction. I can O'ive you the exact returns from 5 the Customs if you desire it. . 50824. What harm does the butter from the other colonies do you as a manufacturer <strong>of</strong> the article? In this way. If but,te; sent to o~her colonies is 8d. a lb. in Sydney or Adelaide before the butter I seml :from here cap. enter their markets, It would be 10c1., consequently I am a loser <strong>of</strong> that 2d. a lb. 50825. No ?-Yes, decidedly; if I could send my butter direct without that extra 2d. being paid at Sydney or Adelaide, that 2d. or a great portion <strong>of</strong> it, if not the whole <strong>of</strong> it would come to me. . 50826. You :nean to say that the Sydney people do not pay the 2d. '?-Certainly; I say I have t? pay It because I export 1t. I am well aware <strong>of</strong>this in the same light as you see it; I am w~ll aware that If the Sydney people pay 8cl. a lb. I have to sell mine at 6cl. here to go into their market, but If they had not the 2d. a lb. I should get 8d. 50827. They would tell you the very opposite in Sydney; they would say if we had not the 2cl. a lb. we should only pay 6d. ?-No, I think not. 50828. B,y llir. Longmore.-What power would you have over them ?-By doing my utmost to get intercolonial free-trade. 50829: By t!te Chairman.-Anytbing else 7-With regard to agricultural imp1em.ents, I am in favour <strong>of</strong>. all duty bemg. rem~ved from them. I cannot see how we can be expected to compete m the same market with other colomes w1th the produce from ours while they get their implements free and we have to pay a heavy duty. 50830. Do you think you would get implements for any less if there were no duty ?-If not, what is the use <strong>of</strong> the duty? 50831. Do not you see you are arguing just the reverse upon the implements that you do upon the b~tter. You say if there were no duty in Sydney you would get the 2d. a pound ?-The two cases are different, one is export and the other is import. 50832. It is export to you, but it is import to them ?-Yes. . 50833. If you. say that the r~moval <strong>of</strong> the duty upon implements coming into Melbourne w~ll ~ake Implements cheaper m Melbourne, It would follow that the removal <strong>of</strong> the cluty from butter gomg mto Sydney mus~ make butter cheaper in Sydney, consequently you would get no bett~r price ,in Sydney for your butter 1f the duty were removed ?-The English machine makers sending then· machmes here have that cluty to pay here, and it must necessarily be added to the price het'C, , 50834. ~s not it t~e same with the butter in Sydney ?-No; it works exactly the same ~ith them as It works w1th me ; It causes them to send less it diminishes their export and an extra pnce for the article has to be obtained here. ' ' 50835. And you get an extra price for your butter iu Sydney, because <strong>of</strong> the duty? -No; it does not come to me, the lower price comes to me certainlv. . 50836. By JJ11·. Longmore.-May I ask you whether agricultural implements. are clearer now than they W';_l'e before the du~y was put on ?-I ~nswer that by saying that the times are.d1fferent. . o0837. At the tn:ne you speak <strong>of</strong>, Implement factories were not common 1n :Melbourne, with the, exception <strong>of</strong> very rude implements, which were made at the time, and that is the reason. T..rniFF. 9 E Robert :BI111.ey, Esq., J.P., con#nueil, 12th :May lSB3... JohnHntst,;. Esq.,J.P., 12th llfny 18$?,.
Change language