EMERGENCY DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 10, 13 January 1932, Page 5

EMERGENCY DUTIES

WARNING. TO FRANCE'

THE NOVEMBER DECREE

(From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, 7th December. In asking the House of Commons to approve the first of two lists of emergency duties imposed upon certain classes of .manufactured goods, Mr. Buneiman (President of the Board of- — Trado) issued a "warning which was ~~ intended to be heard by the FreneiiGovernment. . There had been a suggestion by the Opposition that this policy was contributing something to international friction, he said. He saw no sign of it. The discriminatory duty against exports from this counry into France had been attributed by some members to the Government's policy regarding abnormal importations, but the French decree was published, on 14th November, and, he was informed, had received the official sanction before tha,t date, whereas the earliest date on which tho.Government in this country announced its policy was 16th November... The' Government were naturally amazed to find'that under the French decree, we were not receiving inostf avoured-nation treatment, for, although there was no most-favoured-nation clause in existing treaties, we had throughout no less than .two generations received such* treatment. The attention of the,"French Government had been'drawn to the matter. The coal exporters of this country had been most . severely., hit, and had made representations to France. But there was no connection whatever between this decree and the present orders, or the legislation which preceded them. Nor was anything the Government had dono directed against any country or any trade j they had. maintained the — intinost impartiality. - ' . .; , Mr. Runciman also gave figures showing that the Germans had no grounds of complaint against us for discriminatory action.. He,wished to make it clear that the orders made under this Act Jiad been designed for, the sole purpose of avoiding tho prejudice to United Kingdom industries which resulted from, abnormal importations of particular goods, and in deciding what goods should be made the subject of | an order they had t3ken.,no account of the particular country,from which,thoso goods were imported.: EEVERSAIi OF 3PBAOTICE. "The action of'the French Government," "The Times" .points out in a leading ' article, "reverses a practicd which has continued ever since 1882, noj indeed under the treaty of that date which regulates the' commercial relations between.the two countries, but uiider, a Jlaw promulgated unilaterally by tho French Chamber the day before the treaty -was signed. That law gave most-favoured-riation treatment to British, goods, other than colonial-produce, and during-the fifty years since its passage successive French. Governments have recognised 'its moral obligations by extending to British goods concessions made from time to tinie to goods of other nations. . "What' possible. A-eisoii, it will be asked, r can. there-be-in-necessity or in equity for reversing this practice? Tho trado balance of Prance has until recently been eminently satisfactory, and, though less favourable symptoms are now manifesting. themselves which might lead .the French Government to check imports by tariffs or, as: they have- actually done, to lower, tho per-, mittcd quota of certain classes .pf ims ports, the justification—r-if -justification there be—is of an impartial restriction of imports from all countries and not of discriminatory TCstrictibna;---- Again j if tho reason-is that'-tho- depreciation of sterling, gives, an.undue .advantago ■ to British imports, it must; be -remembered that no special action against French imports was taken by this country oven when tho franc depreciated by over 90 per cent, of its value. It is worth while adding2.;that this action' i has been taken, it'i is understood, under powors to imposo special charges taken before this country abandoned the gold ' standard. For all-these reasons Mr. Eunciman was fully justified in assert- ' ing that action' pf this/kind,. could not. < be ignored, and must be met by methods I less futile than mere protests." . I