SOAP AND WAR

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 153, 29 June 1916, Page 7

SOAP AND WAR

CAMPAIGN THROUGH THE TOILET

BRITISH GLYCERINE.

TO PROMOTE THE MAKING OF

EXPLOSIVE,

At the present time a great deal of United States 'toilet soap is being imported into New Zealand, and the object of this article is to show that this importation is unpatriotic. The case does not rest on any protectionist or tariffite or profiteering argument/ It rests on national necessity—the actual war needs of Britain and of the Entente.

Before the war glycerine was a byproduct of soap manufacture. Ladies made some toilet use of it, and it found a market as a constituent of mining explosives. Since the war glycerine has become a vital material in munitionmaking. In the soap-manufacturing business it has become more important than soap itself. Glycerine is now the more important item of manufacture, and soap has become the by-product. UNFAIR COMPETITION. So important is glycerine that the British Government now prohibits its use for toilet purposes. As long ago as August last the British Government took over the control of the manufacture of glycerine, paying at the rate of £59 10s per ton. Thus, the return from the glycerine branch of the soap-manufac-turer's output became fixed- Since then, however, the price of raw materials—oils and fats—has increased by £15 to £20 a ton. , The price' of glycerine, being fixed by the Government, could not advance in sympathy with the raw material prices; and the only other method of adjustment was to advance soap prices.

It was speedily seen, however, in the Old Country,, that to fix the price of glycerine and to advance the price of soa.p—at the same time maintaining a British market open ,to American and other imports—would be to undermine, the British manufacture of both articles. According to trade journals, while glycerine was limited in Britain by the Government to £59 10s, in the unlimited American market it was bringing from £170 to £190 per ton. This heavy return from glycerine put the American manufacturer in a position to sell soap cheaper than the. British manufacturer could. That is to say, it put the American in a position to undersell British soap in its own market. And a decreased sale in Britain of British soap meant automatically a decreased manufacture of British glycerine. In fact, such a state of affairs tended towards just the result that Britain, and the Entente countries did not' want. According to figures quoted in the House of Commons in March by Mr. Patrick Meehan, the proportion of glycerine in the fats used in making soap is 10 per cent.; and the American manufacturer, owing to the price paid to him for his glycerine, could afford to pay £20 per ton more for his fats than the Irish manufacturer could afford, and make his . soap as cheaply. A BAN ON IMPORTS. _ Recognising the danger of the position, the British Government at the end of,/ March placed a ban on soap imports, thus promoting the British manufacture of soap and glycerine, and at the same time providing room in.ships for the conveyance of necessaries not within the competence of British manufacturers. The suggestion. of profiteering among soap manufacturers was met by the statement that all the soapworks of importance in the United Kingdom were already controlled, and thaf'any excess profit made by soap manufacturers must go to the Government. The discussion of the subject was interesting as showing other difficulties than the one mentioned above. Being under Government control and compulsorily engaged in Government orders, the British soap manufacturers were unable to take any measures to prevent American competitors from stepping into their United Kingdom business; and were further seriously handicapped by similar disturbance in Allied trades. In the House of Commons on 24t_ February Major Newman represented: that, owing to the Government having taken control of firms that used to supply nickel-plated tubes for holding shaving-sticks of soap, British manufacturers of shaving-soap were compelled to send out their article either in seamed tin boxes or else unboxed. In this way the selling value was depreciated as compared with the attractively-prepared American article. Mr. Patrick Meehan made the point that owing to American manufacturers putting on their boxes the addresses of their London agents the public was often deceived as to place of manufacture. WHAT NEW ZEALAND CAN DO. To come back to the starting-point: If Freetrade Britain finds it necessary, for war munition purposes, to protect her manufactures of glycerine and soap, why cannot New Zealand assist by excluding American soap from this Dominion? To do so would not be a piece of fiscal hostility ; it would be a war precaution in keeping with that of the Mother Country. The more British' soap we buy in New Zealand, the greater the output of British glycerine. If the New Zealand Government does not/act, then the people of New Zealand should take action individually. They should insist, when they purchase imported soap, that it comes from the United Kingdom. Every humble shaving-stick should be another torch placed to the Teutonic magazine. And chapped hands should be cared for with something less essential than glycerine. Each ton of soap that Britain fails to manufacture, through foreign competition, means a reduction of at 'least one hundredweight in the output of British glycerine. So it is not too much to say that even the soap-bubbles of the daily routine may be made to 'fight for the Empire.