CORRESPONDENCE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 127, 1 June 1910, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

OUR PROTECTIONIST CABLE NEWS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — In Thursday's issue of The Post a cablegram appears informing us that a Mr. Wilson, described as "Secretary to the China Association," nad written a letter to The Times about tho injurious effect of the new Japanese tariff on British trade. The catke agent informed us further that The Times had described the letter as "important and convincing." Then comes the illuminating item that Mr. Wilson had quoted Baron Komnra's statement that, being a Freetrade country, Britain, was unable to negotiate for tariff concessions with foreign countries. In Saturday's issue you published another cable message, but the comments of The Times thereon are omitted this time. I allude to the forecast of a deficit in Germany which, according to the Berliner Tageblatt, would amount to £12,560,000. By way of commentary on that little item, permit me to point out that Germany has recently attempted to patch her tattered fiscal garments by a n-umber of new imposts, including taxes on Tailway tickets and on theatre tickets, as well as an increase to her monstrous tariff of 1903. Now comes the fact that these taxes have failed in their object, although in consequence of the increased tariff, a line of blockhouses has been, constructed along the land frontiers to prevent smuggling 1 The Liberal papers in Britain are certain to have commented on the German deficit as another illustration of the folly of protection. Such papers as the Westminster Gazette, the Morning Leader,, "and the Daily News would certainly not allow such an item to pass unnoticed. How is it that, while the comments of The Times about the effect (alleged) of the Japanese tariff are cabled to us, not one word is said about the Liberal press comments on the lastest instance of Protectionist fallacy in Germany? This is but another illustration of the gross and shameless bias of the cable agent. If the cable service were controlled by the Tariff Reform League it could not be a more faithful protectionist machine. Some months ago the Berlin Chamber of Commerce strongly condemned the fiscal policy of Germany. But, although this fact was commented on strongly by the Liberal papers in Britain, not a line about it was cabled to us ! Can we believe that the like silence would have been observed had Free Trade been impugned ? Within the past few years we have had four distinguished political visitors to this country, naruply. Messrs. J. Ramsay Macdonald, J. ' Keir Hardie, Will Crooks, and Sir Albert Spicer. Each of thes-j gentlemen has commented strongly on the bias of the cable service. Yet, evidently this gross travesty on decency ami fair play is to continue unchecked. As far as I am aware, The Post, the New Zealand Times, and the Lyttelton Times are the only New Zealand papers who have uttered a word of protest against it. The press as a whole appears quite ready and willing to be the medium through which a continuous stream of misrepresentation is being poured on the public of this country. As a matter of fact, nothing affords a more magnificent demonstration of Free Trade principles than the amateur in which Britain has come through the recent severe strain involved by the rejection of the Budget, and that without the employment of any army of State spies to watch the smuggler. Tho shooting lodges and mining monopolies of the aristocracy cannot be hidden, and "hence these tears." Permit me also to add that Free-traders hold their ■fiscal faith without the slightest concern as to the policies of other countries. We believe in Free Trade as a sound principle of domestic policy, and we regard with contempt the effort to discredit it by magnifying the financial jugglery of Germans or Japanese. — I am, etc., P. J. O'REGAN. WMlington, 30th May.