OUR DUTY TO BRITISH TRADE

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 17, 20 January 1909, Page 4

OUR DUTY TO BRITISH TRADE

A letter which appears in our correspondence columns to-day raises an interesting question which deserves the consideration not only of our public bodies but of private individuals concerned in trade. The writer points out that, with regard bo the cranes which the Harbour Board is arranging to procure, a tender which the Board's engineer recommends for acceptance comes from a German firm; and he argues that it is the duty of the Harbour Board to ignore the foreign tender and to get what it wants from a British maker. In this instance the German article is about £300 cheaper than the British; but our correspondent holds that this should not deter us from following out the policy of preference to England which this country has adopted and giving the order to the British firm. We need not discuss the writer's views about German trade rivalry and the menace of tb4 German fleet. For even those of us who are not inclined to go so far in denouncing Germany are pretty well agreed that foreign'■'competition is, under existing conditions,- highly injurious to British commercial interests, and the country as a whole has committed itself to the principle of Preferential Trade. The' point at issue is, how this principle can be best carried into effect; and we cannot soy that the course advocated by our correspondent appears to us to ha wise or reasonable, .

What the writer of this letter wishes the Harbour Board to do is to buy what It needs solely from British firms, sa long an It can get a reliable article, practically Irrespective of price, If this «curse is to be followed, it is difiieuit to see why in such cases tenders should ever be invited from foreign countries, Besides being unfair to foreign tenderers, it is sheer waste of time to call for tenders in ('erma-ny or France

or America, i' we _ liavu mada up our minds to buy only from England, regard-

less of the difference in- price. In the present instance, that difference is considerable; for it must be remembered that the preferential surtax of 10 per cent, applies to all foreign machinery, and there is still-a margin of £300 between the German tender and the lowest satisfactory British quotation. We may admit that the additional price might be worth paying if the principle were sound; but we contend that this is not the right way to illustrate the theory of Imperial Preference, which New Zealand has adopted as one of the fundamental features of her fiscal policy. It seems to us that the only way in which such a matter can be safely and satisfactorily handled is by the ordinary process of statutory legislation.' We hold, with our correspondent, that it is well for England's colonies to give ■ preference to British goods, and that in so doing they are benefiting England and incidentally themselves as members of the Empire. But, to leave the duty of carrying out this policy to the discretion of public bodies seems to us to be an altogether unsatisfactory way of dealing with the question. It is obvious that if it is once understood that the Auckland Harbour Bpard, for example, reserves to itself the right to reject foreign tenders, irrespective of terms, opportunities will immediately arise for the exercise of "undue influence" in a great variety of forms, to affect the decision of the public body in question. To put it bluntly, to take this course means to open a way for corruption of all kinds; I and we make no reflection upon the' character of the members 'of our public bodies when we . that..:,it Hjs , unfair I to them and the community to,, place! them in such a position. if our correspondent argues that the existing prefer- j ential duties are not sufficient defence! for British trade, case be considered, by Parliament, and if the repre-1 sentatives of the people agree, let the | surtax on foreign goods be increased. So long as our fiscal policy is dictated j solely and definitely by our legislators, no serious objection can be urged against it. But if once this business of protect-1 ing British trade is left to the caprice or the self-interest of public bodies, ot their members, the whole system will be stultified, and a most demoralising element of insecurity will be. introduced | into our commercial relations. Prefer-1 ential trade on behalf of England we have always upheld. But the spurious and' dangerous system advocated by our cor-1 respondent we unhesitatingly oppose.