Trade With Britain

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 121, 15 February 1935, Page 13

Trade With Britain

Sir, —The statements under the above heading by the Hon. Mr. Masters, Minister of Commerce, and the letter by Mr. G. V. Horsfield, indicate that neither of them is prepared to face the outstanding problem, permanent solution of which is absolutely necessary to extricate us out of onr present economic quagmire—the securing of a fair price for our exports. Your leading columns this morning supply a very good illustration which applies also in a national way. You say that it is manifestly impossible to carry on Flock House at a loss of £25 or £3O a week. In just the same way it ife manifestly impossible to carry on the affairs of this country in anything like a satisfactory way while we receive £8 for a bale of wool for which we should receive at least £l5.

This is the major problem in connection with all our development. I stoutly maintain that being an almost self-con-tained country, we do not require to bother'our heads about what other countries do, but simply put our own house in order and inform other countries what the price of our goods are, and what we are prepared to take in exchange for same.

If we take up a firm stand in the question, the market manipulators of all countries will be informed by other vested interests in those countries that the stand taken by the Dominion is a very firm one, and they will be compelled to give us a fair price for our commodities if they wish to trade with us. —I am, etc.. W. STUART WILSON. Wellington. February 13.

Sir, —I am sure that your readers, generally, will deplore the letter appearing in this morning’s issue of your journal over the name of W. Stuarft Wilsqh. Surely our aim should . be to strengthen the ties of friendship with Britain and not to create dissension. Few deny our right, as Mr. Wilson puts it, to be mistress of our own home, but who is disputing that right? Certainly not Britain.

On the other hand, are we not disputing Britain’s right to be mistress in her own home? Have we not protested against Britain’s decision to limit imports into tlie United Kingdom, and demanded that we shall have the right to ship to that market all the butter, meat, and cheese that we can produce? And so far Britain has almost submitted to our demands, but there are many indications that she is not satisfied with the present position. The Government’s present policy is driving to Australia trade that should be going Jo Britain. Do you think that this has passed unnoticed at Home? Not at all. I, like Mr. Wilson, have lived among Englishmen, and I agree with him that they are not philanthropists in their financial and commercial dealings, but it would seem that we look upon them as such when we imagine that we can sell the whole of our produce to them and obtain our own requirements elsewhere. Mr. G. H. Scott has done a good service in bringing this matter before the public again, and it is sincerely to h£ hoped that Mr, Coates and Mr. Masters wifi give this very important question the serious attention it needs. —I am, etc., ANOTHER SCOTT. Wellington, February 12.