The Press Wednesday, November 30, 1921. A Protectionist Mare's Nest.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17316, 30 November 1921, Page 6

The Press Wednesday, November 30, 1921. A Protectionist Mare's Nest.

• If they -were not by now pretty well accustomed to the local Protectionists' ' habit' of confusion and wordiness, readers of "The Press" would be puzzled to know what to make of all the exedtement at last night's meeting of the Canterbury Industrial Association. A long, and in parts quite unintelligible i resolution —the remains, apparently, of a still longer and perhaps more intelligible one—was passed censuring this paper, and asking us to "withdraw the " inference cast upon" the Association by our article. Oar readers know v perfectly well that we made co allu- . skm, direct or indirect, to the Asso- :. aiation, which, indeed, was not in our mind at all. Tbe simple facts aire these: We quoted from the "Domin"ion's" careful and obviously verbatim report of a dialogue between the Hon. B. P» . and Mr W. H. P. Barber, w<ho. as til*. npresentative of a big woollens faptoift .was * member of the deputation which waited upon Mr Lee ' oo Friday lartin Wellington. Mr

Barbor was complaining that, the New Zealand tariff being lower than tho Australian tariff, the British or Continental manufacturer, with stock to dump, ivould send it to New Zealand. Mr Lee asked Mr Barber whether goods could not oome to New Zealand "with- " out in any way being dumped,'' and Mr Barber replied, "They may. Yes." Mr Lee then asked Mr Barbor clearly and directly whether, under those condition?., he would ask for tho Australian tariff against Great Britain. "Yes," Mr Barber said, "I will aak for it." Now , it i 9 not long since Mr Frostick, affecting to misunderstand an article of oxlts, rebuked us for, as he alleged, suggesting that any New Zealand j manufacturer would ask for the ap-i plication of tho "foreign" tariff to; liriH.sh goods. It seemed to us that j Mr Barber's candid declaration of hisj attitude was a contradiction of Mr| Frostick's statement that there was "no justification" for the suggestion! referred to. "This seems to us," we

said, "to make it clear that as far as '' some people are concerned the talk " about 'dumping' is designed simpjy to

"mask the movement for high Protec- " tion." Mr Frostick was no doubt quite sincere in his belief that he was correctly, describ : the fixed attitude of all the manufacturers. He was, of course, mistaken, and we were surely entitled to point it out without its being suggested that we imputed untruth to Vim. Surely Mr Frostick does not claim, as his attitude would imply, that be is incapable of an innocent mistake. ' As for the Canterbury Industrial Association, we wei;e not concerned with it at all; and as we cannot believe the members of it incapable of reading plain English., it seems to us thait those who discussed "The Press" last night were merely choosing a curi-j ous method of registering their disapproval* of our suggestion that the Go-j vernment ought to explain why its tariff policy is necessary. As for the resolution which was carried by the J meeting, it asks us to withdraw an. aspersion upon the Association which exists only in the imagination of the Association's members, if, indeed, it exists even there. The suggestion, we may add, that we wrote on "incom- " plete information" is without foundation, as indeed, is evident, for a member who was present at the Wellington deputation simply confirmed the information we had. The Association is fully entitled to point out "vigor- " ou6ly" anything it pleases, but to be "vigorous" is not, as so many people suppose, the same as to be telling, arid the Association's "vigour" becomes rather absurd when it is beside the mark, ae it was in this oaso. In conclusion, we invite the Association to point to even one statement in our article which ig in the smallest degree inaccurate or misleading.