MR HUGO FRIEDLANDER'S VIEWS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXI, Issue 5501, 19 October 1901, Page 2

MR HUGO FRIEDLANDER'S VIEWS.

A representative of this journal has interviewed Mr Hugo Friedlander, Managing Director of the well known firm of Friedlander Bros, Limited, one of the largest grain exporting firms in this colony, with a view to ascertain his views on the Federal Tariff question, and New Zealand's position in connection therewith! EFFECT ON NEW ZEALAND " Personally," said Mr Friedlander, I don't think the Federal Tariff will ruin New Zealand or any of our own industries in particular. At anyrale, it oannot very well affect our potato, or onion, or ham producers for a year or so. As far as the presenb season's export to Australia is concerned, we haven't much more left to send there, and what there islef r, if wanted ov9r on theother side, the duty will in all probability have to be paid-by the consumers. As to next year's trade, our Australian brethren will still have to look bo ua for such products, and in such quantitiss as they will require, tariff or no tariff Not knowing what duties Mr Bartrn was going to impose, it is obvious the Australians couldn't prepare for it, and I question very much if Australia will be able to do without some of our products even tbe year following, as it Is not v< vy ea«y for any colony to tike immediate advantage of 'protective'duties and produce almost ail at once suoh goods as the particular tariff fosters. We needn't therefore, worry very much about theloaa of trade ml% Australia, for a year or two. Daring thab time many things may happen. A freetre.de Govern* ment m%y be in office, a^d Mr B-rbon'd out of it new Zealand's best poucy. ■ "What would you consider the mo*t,: prudenb policy lor New Zealand to adopt?' "Well, our Government may be able— which I Strongly favour—to arrange a recip-ooal agreemenb with the Commonwealth. Tbe enterprise of the commercial oommunily of New Zealand with or wiihou. the assistance of our Gov.r_n.enb, (the former preferred) will have had time to look round for new fisHs. And to my mind, this would have bsen necessary in any case, inasmuch as the Australian Colonies were gradually bub surely supplying all their wants of such nroduot., which were being sent from New Z lalanr 7. no weed fob alarm. .Taking everything into consideration, there is no necessity bo be alirmed, the loss to New Zealand through the Federal duties will, lam satisfied, nob be very great* Bub however much ib may be, howev«r bard ib may press upon a few of our producers, the majority ought nob to be mvde to suffer, nor oan ib possibly reach ' that great, great loss New Zealand, in my opinion, would surely have to face, had we pined the Commonwealth, KETAJ.IATION. HDo you favour a policy cf retaliation"!'' "No, lam strpng'y opposed to retaliation of say kind ab this present stage. It would be lnjudio'oue and unwise, Injudicious, as retaliatory measures would in all probability prejudice our obtaining a reciprocal agreementj unwise, aa we, as welt as Australia, must lose by auoh a short sighted policy being adopted. And why should we retaliate ? We declined with our eyes wi^e open bo jolu the Commonwealth. Whab rfght have we therefore to complaint For all we know the tariff may be modified as far as it affeots the products we are sending to Australia, before ib Is finally passed; Wby should we interfere and talk of retaliation at this early stage. Why should we expect to be considered by the Commonwealth? Isn't ib natural thab the Federal Government should foster such industries, which oan readily a_d profitably be dcv loped within its own States."

it is scarcely necessary to say thab as Messrs B'riadUi-dsr'Bos have beeij so largely engaged in the export of New productions for many yeara. the views recorded above are of especial value at the presenb juncture.