Protectionist Statistics.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17222, 12 August 1921, Page 6

Protectionist Statistics.

The President of the Industrial Association would have been well advised if he had consulted the members of his Association before sending us the letter in which he seeks to reply to our comments upon the appendices in tho pamphlet containing Mr Frostick's address. For wo cannot believe that the members of the Association aa a whole can approve of their President's shuffling attempt to justify what we now say plainly was the most shocking misuse of statistics that we fliave ever encountered—a worse misuse than we quoted from Mr Williams's "Made in Ger- " many." Before we proceed to justify this criticism we may note one or two minor points in Mr Jenkin's letter. •The first thing to be noted is that " England" has not "considered it "necessary to alter her policy." Tho Safeguarding of Industries Bill is opposed not only by a majority of tho people, but by every banker, financier, and commercial leader of good standing in the kingdom. The New Protection will last only as long as the present Government. The second point is that we possess all the figures possessed' bv our correspondent. We have the details of the American exports in 1919, and the details of tho British imports, but we have not at hand all the details (although wo have the most important of them) of the American exports to Britain in 1619. Our details of America's exportß, like Mr Jenkin's, do not show in detail the countries of destination. Our details of Britain's imports do not show all the details of country of origin. And our correspondent does not quote any details whatever of the American exports to Britain. We suspect that he has not got tfliem. If he has them, he. should quote them. We are perfectly sure he will not.

We shall now invito the members of the Industrial Association to consider the sort of thing that is done in their name. In the appendix of tlho pamphlet the emphasis of tabular exhibition was given to the fact that in 1919 the American exports to Great Britain were valued at 543 millions sterling. This fact was presented an evidence of the way in which "a protected country can "compete successfully with a freetrado "country," and the table was immediately followed by an enthusiastic paragraph, designed to show how it was done, describing the "efficiency" and " economy" and technical "skill" of the manufacturing works of America. We showed that in 1918, when tho American exports to Britain were worth 515 millions, only 47 millions were manufactured goods, and wo gave reasons (based upon the higher values of certain foods or raw material imported by Britain from America in 1919) why, the manufactures sent by America to Britain in 1919 were not worth 643 millions, but less than 60 millions. Mr Jenkin does not deny this, but he quotes tho general details of all America's exports in 1919, of which the main feature w the export of 520 millions of manufactured goods out of a total export of 1350 millions, or 38i per cent, of manufactures. Since Britain took 643 millions of this total of 1350 millions, the reader iB left to infer that Britain received 381 per cent, ot her 643 millions' worth in manufac-1 tttres, or a total value of 209 millions of manufactured goods from America. That thid is wildly untrue we showed yesterday. It is the impression that tlhe reader of the pamphlet would obtain if he had "made use of the ex- " planatory table on the opposite page," which Mr Jenkitt blames us for not' doing. We did hot make use of it because we were concerned about the actual facts. If we had relied upon it we should have been led to as false a conclusion as the tables wo did quote could not fail to produce on tho reade* who might suppose that the Industrial Association could be defended upon. The position then ie this: (1) The pamphlet on page 21 says almost as plainly as words can say that American manu r f&ctures to the Value of 643 ftiillionß went from America to Britain in 1919. (2) Mr Jenkitt now suggests that page 21 should be read with page 20, and the result in that case would have been that the reader would have supposed that the American manufactures sold in Britain in 1919 were worth about 200 millions. (3) The fact is that even the lower figure is a wildly extravagant exaggeration. Our correspondent ought to say plainly and without equivocation whether tfliis statement of dtirs is not correct. Can he Ehow that the American export of manufactured articles to Britain in 1919 exceeded even 50 millions?

Of course the statistics W hate been dealing with Amount to little as a contribution to the fiscal Controversy. We hate called attention to theiu only in order to Bhow members of the Industrial Association, and tine general public, the standard of Candour adopted by the Association's publicity ageniSi Thej first quote the British trade figures of 1914 and i 919 as «'a further pioof that the " trade of the world is not secured by "the operation-of free trade." They then present the figures in such a way .as to create an absolutely false impression. And they will not, when exposed, admit the fact. As to the first point, our readers will observe that there is not a word in Mr Jenkin's letter concerning the impropriety of making a comparison between the 1914 and 1919 figures as "a further proof "that the trade of the wotfd, ia njtf)

"secured by the operation of free' l " trade." A fine chance Britain had to secure the trade of the world in that quinquennium! Those figures are a proof of nothing except that Britain was fighting for her life. Of this fact our correspondent still says nothing—not a word of apology, not a word of withdrawal, not a syllable to admit that the comparison was an absurd one to make, not a single word to dhow that he realises how unpleasant it is to see tho gaping economic wounds sustained by Britain in her terrific struggle turned with a sneer into Protectionist statistics. Do the members of the Industrial Association really approve of this?