PROTECTIONIST STATISTICS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17222, 12 August 1921, Page 8

PROTECTIONIST STATISTICS.

TO TB. ■»»>» <® " TS " PMM ' ssr"S ß r4k /skyotttste good enough opu from r tlie British shipbuilding as betS the vears 18T2 and 1890 has any direct bearing upon the question. I have never expressed any opinion wHoh vould justify you, or anyone else, L saying that I considered Britain was and old." Most things m tUns world are judged by comparison, and as I believe that like conditions will produce like results, I have made the comparison, as far as I know, according to fact as between what has happened in respect to manufacturing development under protection in many countries, and free trade in respect to the one country . England. Further, that even England, the bldest of the manufacturing nations, the parent of free trade, has considered it necrssary to alter iher policy by protecting what she calls her key industries from the invasion of her markets by the foreign manufa^urer. Now, this is either true or it is untrue, and the remarks that I have made with regard to it are taken larpely from cabled news published in your own paper. , You make <q»cial comment with regard to tflie appendix printed in tho pamphlet containing Sir J. A. Frosvtick's address, "Is Protection Good for the Notion ?" Your quotations are perfectly correct, but wny did y.ou not make use of the more explanatory table on the opposite page, which was put there for the purpose as stated; namely, to enable readers to understand the class of goods imported and exported by America P

You now admit that whilst you have the figures for 1919 in tflie total, you do not possess the classified details. 1 therefor© now give them as follows, and would ask you to be . good enough to publish them In order to brine: the figures clearly before the people, the dollars have been converted to the £ sterling on the basis of five to the £, wftich is ne'ar enough for all practical purposes. Groiip l, Breadstuffs .. 954.779.804 Pifli .. .. 57,19!).ft28 Fruit and Nuts 71,292,813 «nd Dairy Produce .. 1,167.850,576 Vegetables .. 53.5 1 3,794 Sugar and Molasses 88,965,281 i 1 Group 2—Manufactured' Goods. Asrricnlfural Iraplts 42. Brars Manufactures 21,149,416 Chemiools, Drugs, etc .. 148,051,419 Copper are! Manufacture* «f .. 14*."M" caj 'Manuf. fot'on 232,680,728 . v EJpc. Machinery, ex lus. Locomotives .. 80,712,!t10 Fxpl e'ves 12'.780 877 Motor-cars, etc. 198,191,860 G'asaware .. 21,898,185 Iron and Steel Hanufrturvi 1,064,974,299 3>nd ord Manufacture of .. 12,579,033 Loat' er and Mama- ' faetuies of .. 182,908,949 tPacnto and Varnishes .. 93,227,108 Paper 84,07?,264 Plio-tog. Goods 16 "43,'27 Soap .. 17,619,404 Wines and Spirits l?. Rr P, '25 Surgical >ppla. 16948,415 "Wood and Mfrs. of 104.SSI,SOS Wool and Mirs. of 8 1 ,247 ">22 22,F54,895 Group 3 (not inohifled in 1 and 2). AnimaHs .. 10,718 651 Aluminium .. 7,5 2,007 . ' Coal 106,989,511. Coke .. 8,499,109 TJi-mariuf. Co'ton 873,679,669 Fibre and Veg. Marrafaotia-es 85,014,952 Furs tnd Skins 14,612,015 Mfra. of Indiarubber .. 43,856,583 Naval Stores .. 17, 77 497 Min-ral Oils 844 613,109 Vege'tible Oils .. 58,891,504 ' Paraffin, and Par., Wax i. 24,557,386 Tobacco .. 225,597,184 . 1,772,21.9,375 6,719,242,617' In £ sterling at 6 dollars to the .£ £1,349,848,503) The object of the tables given in the appendix to the pamphlet was to show that in competition with the world, America as a protected country was making greater headway than England, a free trade country (see table on page '2O and the first table on page 21, wnich gives the imports and exports for the world in respect to both countries). The object that I have in sending the tables herewith, is to show the class of goods that America sends out to the world, and especially in Group 2, that their export of manufactured goods totals 520 ihilliona sterling. • You evidently admit that my figures are correct—American exports to United Kingdom and imports from United Kingdom, and when you are able to give che details as to what percentage of thi 543 millions sterling are for the goods you mention, then it will be time enough to talk about it, and it will not help the general question very much because in dealing with the world. , protected America i« making greater headway than free-trade England. I have nothing further to say except this, that we who believe in a protective policy, are just as loyal to our Empire aa those who accuse us of jeering at our Motherland by the quotation of statistical figures. It is not unfair to reply to your suggestion that "there is no clogging delicacy about the protectionist propaganda," bv saying that there does not appear to be any clogging delicacy on the other side. —Yours, etc., •TV. J. JF.NKIN, President C.I.A. fWe deal with this letter in a leading article. In order not to cumber our article with too many details, we may note here one or two points in connexion with Mr Jenkin s list ■ of manufactures exported from America in 1919. Britain received 543 mil'ions -worth of goods of all kinds from 'America, but a very "small proportion came as manufactured goods. She took roughly 5-13ths of America's total exports. "What our correspondent would have us assume, therefore, is that she took o-13ths of the manufactures. ' Now America sent out £212,009,C00 worth of iron and steel goods. If Britain had taken 5-13ths of this she would have taken, roughly, 80 millions worth. Yet her total imports of iron and steel goods was under 111 millions. So with cotton manufactures. jOur correspondent would have us assume that she took about IS millions worth of these; yet her total import of cotton manufactures amounted to under millions. So with motor cars. Onr correspondent would have us assume*' that she took 15 millions .worth of these; actually her total imports of these were under 7i millions. And so on. The fact ib, that it was other customers than Britain who took the bulk of America's manufactures. Britain took food, petrol, cotton and raw materials generally.—Ed. "The Press.]