Secondary Industries.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18676, 27 April 1926, Page 8

Secondary Industries.

In a letter which we print on another page, Mr I. Woolf, an energetic raemj ber of the Industrial Association, con- ! eludes what seems to be intended as | a criticism o£ our recent articles on the demand for a higher tariff with j what we assume is a jest. The one thing " The Press" has in common with the Red Fed element, he says, is "their tender solicitude for manu"facturers' interests in every country "except the one of their adoption. " Surely," he adds, " 'The Press' is not "going 'Bolshie'?" The Reds are .likely to be much more deeply offended by this than " The Press " can be, for they are against all manufacturers everywhere, and regard Britain and the British industrialist, whom the Association would further penalise, as the arch-enemies of the Bolshevist theory. Our correspondent's letter would have been printed without comment, however, were it not that it contains an imputation of unfairness against " The " Press." Our " unfair method of " attack on N.Z. manufacturers," he says, "is well known," and he adds that we " suppress facts to bolster our "argument." We do not very much mind being told by those who cannot meet the points we raise that the points are unfair, because a charge of unfairness is of no consequence unless it is supported by Bome sort of proof. In this case the charge of suppressing " facts" is based upon our omission to say that the Australian and American tariffs are very high. But that fact is so well known that neglect to mention it is not more unfair than to neglect to mention that to-day is Tuesday. Since it is obviously to be desired that the Industrial Association's mental processes should be thoroughly understood, we should be very glad if the Association or those who take up their pens in defence of it would give examples of what is thought unfair in our criticisms, with reasons why they t.hink them unfair. In the meantime we should like to know on what grounds our correspondent wishes it to be believed that American efficiency is only "made possible" by a very high tariff. For generations a very high degree of efficiency has been discoverable in industries in Britain. Even in New Zealand there are secondary industries which, even before the last tariff revision, were (as they still remain) efficient and profitable. Efficiency and good technique may reap very rich, rewards under a high tariff, but they can be achieved under a low tariff or under no tariff at all. Indeed, the lower the tariff, the stronger the incentive to efficient methods, for efficiency then becomes essential to profitable existence. Conversely, efficiency becomes less necessary to profits when profits can be had through a tariff which keeps out the products of intense study of industrial methods and high technique. It ought not to be necessary for us to point this out to the Industrial Association. We should far more readily furnish the Association and its defenders with space for a defence of their desire to erect still higher barriers against the products of the Motherland at a time when she needs whatever friendly assistance can be given to her by the Dominions which owe her so much.