PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 162, 9 July 1903, Page 3

PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

DISCUSSION BY AUOKLAND MERCHANTS.

AN ANGLaSAXON CORDON.

A fairly well-attended special meeting of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce yesterday discussed preferential trade at considerable length. The President, Mr B. Kent, opened the discussion with an able paper, in the course of which he expressed hie belief that the colonies had everything to gain by preferential tariff. He believed in free -trade, if that free trade were reciprocal, but everywhere where British exports were sent there was a wall of protection raised against them. When they found such splendid statesmen as Messrs Balfour and Chamberlain heartily advocating preferential tariffs, he thought that Chamber need be under no apprehension whether the time had come for au exhaustive examination into the subject. A great deal had been said and written since the question was first raised by some foreign countries as to the unwisdom of Great Britain establishing preferential trade, but what did this show? It was not that they feared injury to Great Britain; some of them would not mind that very much. But was it not rather that they knew or tee-red that preferential trade would have the effect of shutting out a lot of their own exports, and possibly improve •the exchange of manufactures and products between the colonies and Great Britain? Britain must move with the times, and the times were moving rapidly to-day. Grain, wool, and dahy produce would soon be exported in large quantities from South America, Southern Russia, and Siberia to Great Britain, and it was obvious that these countries, being enormously rich, would have to be reckoned with in the near future. The land of Siberia was the coming land for dairy produce and wheat, produced on such conditions that the colonies would have to look after themselves if they did not want to be flooded out of the British market. His attention had been attracted by the remarks of a friend of his is a lecture delivered in Auckland a few nights ago. That leoturer condemned the complaint raised by some against foreign countries being admitted to the trade of South Africa, on equal terms with British. This he (Mr Kent) considered was equivalent to saying that Britain and her colonies after spending some £250,000,000 on the war and sacrificing many thousands of valuable lives was to have no preference over the foreigner who stood outside, not without hope that Great Britain would be defeated in the object she had in view. To him it was utter nonsense to either write or speak in that way, for would any other nation have done aa Great Britain had done. Would not the sensible United States have taken care of her own people first by preferential tariffs? Would not Russia? There was no sense in such a policy, and although the Premier of this colony had struck out for preferential trade in the vigorous style of a born fighter, yet he would infinitely prefer that he should do this rather than take up a weaker attitude, because it would knock off some of the duat which appeared to have accumulated on the minds of some other politicians. He would move; "That this Chamber is of opinion that the time has come when the subject of preferential .tariffs should, be exhaustively discussed, and if found likely* to conduce to the welfare of Great Britain and her colonies, then the principle should be adopted."

Mr Vaile, in seconding, said this resolution was too non-committal. He would have preferred a resolution affirming the principle of preferential tariffs in regard to British products and manufactures. We should give to Britain s rebate similar to that given by Canada on existing duties, rather than increase existing duties. Absolute free trade did not exist. Universal free trade was unobtainable, and it was an act of downright folly for Britain to grant free trade to countries which did not give it in return. It was the enormous sums of British money spent in foreign countries which had enabled them to compete so successfully against British trade. As a principle of trading he felt that it was of more importance to cultivate internal trading. If we could secure this among Britain and her dependencies, then America would very soon come, and we could snap our fingers at 'the whole world. The great prosperity of the nUited States, which waa at zero at the end of the civil war, was revived by developing their internal trade which carried them ahead by leaps and bounds. They could understand that there was a large section at Home who viewed the loss of the foreign trade with anxiety. Out of the total British trade of 1901, namely, £870,000,000, the foreign trade was £651,000,000, while only £219,000,----000, was colonial. It would be necessary, therefore, for the colonies to do their very best to help the Mother Country if preferential trade were decided on. If the policy had the effect of reducing the foreign by one-third it might double the colonial trade. . And he. believed it would do more than this in regard to the colonies. Last year, the first year of the preferential trade, Canada's exports to Great Britain decreased, but her imports from Britain increased by £ 200,000. He had no doubt that preferential trade would work well, and he had great pleasure in seconding *he resolution.

Mr Burns said that in America, the type of a protected country, they had a crop of millionaires alongside of a populace that was needy. He considered that though New Zealand would not suffer from preferential trade, England would, and he was sure they did not want Engird to suffer. Mr ChamberMn was! businese man, but he.w also a politician, and it was in thelatter capacity and not in the former that h. waTJutting forward this policy oi prererenUal trade. He was convinced that America's protective policy hadl been handicapping her at tht coet of the mUlions, but to the advantage of the nulU °sf President said when two such abk statesmen advocated this policy ac Mr Chamberlain and Mr Balfour it was the duty of every Chamber of Commerce to seriously discuss the question The resolution went no further **».«»*• Mr Upton, speaking of the fear of British markets being supplied from the Argentine, Siberia, and other foreign countries, said it wae hardly fair that the poor classes of England should be prevented from enjoying the cheap products of those productive countries. He gave instances of poverty among the milUons of England which had been alleviated by free trade. It had been said that New Zealand should help the Motner Country. But he would point out that scarcely any country in the world had drawn around itself so strong

a cordon of defence by protective policy ac New Zealand had done. The best way to help the-Mother Country was first of all to reduce the cost of bur'products' here in this colony. It was a ward notion to build a wall around ourselves and any, "We will not trade with the rest of the y world any more." Attention had been drawn to the immense sum of money spent in South Africa. But if he had believed that Britain was going to war with South Africa for trade advantages he would never have raised his voice in her favour or given a stiver. Every tariff was an obstacle to trade, and the more tariffs that were removed the more trade would be made possible. He was a strong fre# trader. He wished all of those present could have heard the eloquent paper read at the Auckland Institute by Professor Segar. As had been said by Mr Burns, if America adopted free trade she would immediately surpass all other countries in her amount of trade. British trade, however, was in a flourishing condition. The year 1900 was a record year, and the year 1902 was a record of records. He wae glad to support the resolution. Hβ believed the result of the discussion would be on the right side, and would show that the best policy for New Zealand would be to remove the obstacles she had already set up. Mr Cheal declared himself a firm fair trader, and disputed the statements that the working classes of Britain were prosperous. Preferential trade would hit Great Britain harder than it would hit any other members of the Empire. There would certainly be reprisals from Germany, France and Russia, but probably not so serious as were anticipated, for these countries at present bought no more British articles than they actually required. He believed preferential trade, while raising the price of food and other articles in the Empire, would also raise the wages.

Mr Trenwith regarded the question of preferential trade as a matter of sentiment, but it was a sentiment with which he agreed.

Mr Mennie, who recently toured England, Canada and America, thought the preferential trade would enable British fanners to profitably cultivate tracts of land which now lay uncultivated. By free trade Britain built up great industries, and at that time it was the right policy encouraging the importation of raw materials. But it seemed to be considered by Mr Chamberlain and others that they had now arrived at the parting of the ways. Britain's industries were in danger of collapsing, her home production of food was negleoted, and she was vulnerable in caat of war in a rery serious point. Many of Britain's best workmen had had to go to America for work under her protective tariff. Mr Upton: Aad the Americans have gone to Canada. The President: That is for farming. Mr Caldwell said he noticed from Mr Chamberlain's speech in an issue of the "Times" that he did not propose to tax raw material or food products which did not compete with the products of the Mother Country. And he also proposed to utilise the proceeds of the new taxation to make prudential provision for the aged. During a visit to America he found that reciprocity was unobtainable, as no American statesman would dare to propose a cancellation of their present system. Britain wa» in the position of a man following out of date methods. She must change her methods and reorganise on the lines of her most successful rival's; -'--, -■■< ' .■ "■:•' \'.., ~ ~' ..,.

Professor Segar, at the requeet of the meeting, spoke briefly, explaining some of his views expressed .to the Auckland Institute. It was difficult to detect what would be the most important effects of preferential trade. It was easy to see the direct effects, but it was the ml direct effects, which were hidden deep beneath the surface of the subject, and far-reaching in their ramifications, that were of the greatest consequence, and these could not be understood by any but experts. He did not know a modern economist who was a protectionist. What was the cause of this?

The President: Often impracticability. Professor Segar: It is the same in protected countries—France, for instance.

After slight further discussion the President's motion was carried unanimously.