THAT DEPUTATION.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17320, 5 December 1921, Page 10

THAT DEPUTATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE TRESS." Sir, —You kavo invited tho Cantor-1 bury Industrial Association to point to even one statement in your leading article of 30th ult. which is in the slightest dogieo inaccurate or misleading. That invitation is my-reason for intruding upon your valuable space. As a member of tho executive of that body, and of tho deputation who attended the meetings in Wellington, and v;ho was appointed to the committee fet up to prepare the memorandum to the Prime Minister (published in your i-sue 01" 29th ult., and which was the basis of tho deputation's- interview with Hon. E. P. Lee), I am in a position to know exactly what took place. I have said that your interpretation cf that interview was not "quite correct nor fair." It is generally recognised that if a subject is taken out of it 3 setting or context it becomes distorted or ambiguous. This is what hr.3 taken place in this matter. You have taken out a portion of the dialogue, and in doing so an unwarranted slur has been cast upon the manufacturers or this Dominion. You have, inadvertently, no doubt, from incomplete information, drawn certain deductions, ;ind you, of course, wish to "stick to your guns," hut because your deduction, viz., "that tho talk about dumping is designed simply to mask the movement for high . protection" _is .simply untrue, as far as the deputation is concerned, it i 3 necessary to state the position fully and refute the allegation. You have referred to Mr Barhor p.s the "chief spokesman" of the deputation. He was not. It was arranged to have two speakers, Mr Barber to speak on one subject and Mr , Holland on another; they therefore rank equally. Mr O. J. Ward, president of the Industrial Corporation, , who > headed the deputation and outlined the business, was tbs chief spokesman. What Mr AVard said was of considerable consequence. and ag you say "he had to fsv something," you yourself apparently realise that Mr Barber haa been taken- by surprise, and was quite unprcpawd to handle the Minister's question. The dialogue as reported by the throo Wellington papers proves tnk. Jloreover, Mr WartLsaid something re/sre, and it is published by tbe "Po&t" 03 November 26th, immediately below •its report of the interview, as follows: "Explanation by Mr Ward; Mr Ward to-dav that the references to iho UnitedvKingdom yesterday, when the matter o£ dumping waa being discussed. were £iot the: result of any resolution of the New Zealand Industrial Corporation. The meetings of maonfiicturers had decided to draw attention to tho disadvantages which would be MifTererl by Dominion industries by reason pf the fact thai iPf«w Zealand e lower tariff wonjd attract the goods of overseas pymufacturara more to the Dominion than to the, Commonwealth, but it® question of the need of any special protectivo action in regard to .imports fjojn tho United Kingdom had not, been broygb-t up at the meetings and had nol>, yet been considered." This should snake it plain thgt Mr JJarbcr did »ot and could not express the mews'-of manufacturers, because this subject iad never been considered^ The,.following paragraph is from the memorandum, to the PHme Minister wa3 the basis or "text'' of. the spokesman of the deputation: "Prsvantio»:.of Dwnpj»g.~We #» of ©pin--ion that «very practicable measure - diouW be taken in th© schedules as a preventative *©f 'dumping.' In addition, w© are of opinion that tha basis of fovy. of Ouatoiaw duty should be a fair valuation of Hie goods in the country of import.v Wa wish to draw your at.tention to the fact that as Australia ,has a lusher tariff- than New Zealand a gainst other countries, there is always the danger that such countries will prefer to iqnd. tlieir goods to New Zealand rnther than to Aust, ilia. Thus the Now .Zealand, markets could be overstocked to the detriment .of Dominion mnmifjicturors." > This;, is the *on»dfered policy of the • manufacturers who attended the tmeetingsfceld prior to iba tending of tbe ao?iutfttion to Mr Lee and it refers entif«y to l'dtanping." Regarding thd ''Dominion": report, it is not a complete report of tbe interview. Tbe "Post"' supplied that' thcJ omitted* and the "Times < something el«#, are each different or dissimilar, besides something r else was aaid that waa not reported by i«ny of tßeso papers. j " Jteanrtiiny your remark tHIt I have not quoted the ♦'Dominion" report correctly, would yon kindly publish the tfholA-of that report, as far as it re- ; iates to tba-dialogue between Messrs I<ee, Barber and Ward, your readers ? will then aeo wherein I have not quoted !t correctly, and also if you were justi- ; fled in your deduction regarding the attitndo of manufacturers towards protection." The report will, also * show that Hon. w manifestly 'sttiprwed *t Mr Barber*# hesitating fid peculiar reply that he turned to r Ward for, confirmation, and asked the auestion again, as reported. In his . dilemma Mr Barber would have been in order in referring- the Minister to Mr Word. Now with regarti to tho position of the Dominion manufacturers; they state their case openly and publicly; they do not "mask" anything for any* ulterior motive. They endorse the • report of the Tariff Commission, particularly the "directions as to. policy" published in "The Press", on 2nd inst., and'its recommendations for safeguarding the public through the Board of Trade. Manufacturers ask how are : we going to be able to pay the rates of wages," for instance, awarded by the Arbitration Court .if our manufactured goods have to compete with those'made jn such countries as India, China and Japan, unless' ,we have protection?.' These countries' are progressive ancj are boooming organised industrially, ' Their rates or wages are 7s 6d per month for a 12-hour day, and their standard of living is immeasurably below that of the Dominion. Tbe Tariff ' Commission xeoommends protection . Against the menace of cheap Eastern labour and eferyono .who considers tha welfare of his country realises that it is advantageon--- from every point of view . tohsro* higher standard of living th*a •what prcvaOsm Eastern' and some European lands. Some people- would prefer that the Onstoms duties shoold be removed. This would afiow of more profit being made iy individuals by importation from countries of eheap labour and bad conditions, -etc:, but manufacturers hav* the progress and development of the •' Dominion at. heart. Th& following is -from the memorandum to . prime Minister: "National outlook. We wish to J givo you our assurance that in stating this case'we have no merely selfish

njotive. As manufacturer*. we are naturally concerned with the prospect of our ex tensive enterprise m New Zealand, but in looking at the case from the viewpoint of manufacturers, wa bavo also in rgind tho welfare of Not/ Zealand as a whok. We believe that the first line cf national defence must be in strong industries. A proper development of manufacturing is essentia 1 to a pioper development of Xev>Zealand. 'Some of your statements have recognised the truth of our argument and we are confident that a nation;;! policy based on your promise foi tho encouragement., of manufacturing industries would be strongly approved by the great majority of New Zealanders." I feel confident. Sir. that when you lave tho whole case of this deputation as I have presented it (and you can obtain confirmation from any member of tho_ deputation), and if you will read again all the published reports, et-e.. you will realise that the manufacturers have been unjustly maligned by you, through incomplete information and misconceptions. Apologising for the length of this letter, and thanking you in anticipation for its publication.—Yours, etc., R. a. WILSON. [This long letter is far from clear, but what our correspondent wishes to say, apparently, is that' Mr Barber expressed only his own opinion. We have quoted tho whole of that pprtion of the "Dominion's" report concerning Mr Barber, which our correspondent misquoted. If not a single_ other manufacturer shares the view of Mr Barber may be true, but it would bo surprising, and in any event our inference from his remarks was a natural and proper ono.—Ed. "The Press."]