Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

GREAT BRITAIN'S POSITION.

TO TUB KDITOa OP "THE PEESS." :Sir,— The sentiments andeargumcnts expressed by "Imperialist" in your issue of this date, under the above heading, aro so convincing as a reply to those critics of Britain's methods that his letter does not need any endorsement, but tliev are so exactly what tlie "Imperial Mission'' stands for that I feel I would like to invite him, if he is not already a member, to lose no time in joining that organisation, the office of which is at 176 Hereford street. We want more spade - workers and constructive helpers, but unfortunately the role of the destructive critic does not invite any effort, and there are at least nineteen (19) of the latter for every one of tho former in this communitv. —Yours, etc., EDW. G. LEVINGE. January 29tli, 1926.

TO THE EDITOR OP "THE TRESS." Sir,—Once again 1 apologise for trespassing on your valuable space on the above subject in reply to 'lmperialist's" letter in your issue of date. I can assure "Imperialist" when I used both the terms, "muddling" and "antiquated business methods," I was quite serious, and still say that both are applicable, and if "Imperialist" does not know of more up-to-date methods of business than. Great Britain's I am sorrv for him. Why ''lmperialist" should introduce the question of honesty is beyond my comprehension, for I never questioned this and cannot see that, modern, business methods cannot be carried out without question of veracity. As to "muddling"—well this certainly does apply, for its own house is not in order, and its large industries, I regret to say, aro suffering from the inroads of foreign competition duo to want of adequate protection, which would increase employment, and this is now sadly needed in our Motherland. * Yes, it is up to all of us to support New Zealand's industries first, and after this Great Britain's, and then those of other parts of our Empire; but are the manufacturers' that are seeking our support here doing this? Emphatically I say they are not, and they give you some flimsy .excuse and probably become annoyed when you point this out to them; they depreciate the product of Great Britain, thereby displaying their ignorance as to quality. Great Britain's manufacturers want to wake up to the market it is allowing the foreigner to "nobble" to-day, and the New Zealander must also awake to the fact that he. is now supporting the foreigner to the detriment of his country and 'his own future prosperity. — Yours, etc.. DUTY.\

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19260130.2.141

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18603, 30 January 1926, Page 17

Word Count
423

GREAT BRITAIN'S POSITION. Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18603, 30 January 1926, Page 17

GREAT BRITAIN'S POSITION. Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18603, 30 January 1926, Page 17

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert