BRITISH v. GERMAN GOODS.

Evening Star, Issue 15929, 8 October 1915, Page 1

BRITISH v. GERMAN GOODS.

TO THE EDITOR Your issue of the 7th hist, surely presents an extraordinary anomaly. Under the leader we find a fine article upon “ patriotism." under another head a full report of the meeting held 'by citizens, whose minds were made up upon the burning question'—viz., that “against trad ing with the enemy."’ We read tine speeches by His Worship the Mayor, by the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, and by other well-known citizens, all declaiming against this trading with the enemy. A motion was proposed and duly carried in favor of trade with Britain and her dependencies, ail the remarks being punctuated by applause. T urn to the other side, and what do wo find? At a building but a. few yards distant the City Council—the representatives of the peopie—arc having their fortnightly meeting; but the sentiments emanating from their debating chamber do not coincide with those expressed by the people who sent them there. If the report of the council meeting is correct (and it must be so), then the spectacle, surely, of representative members of the community endeavoring to show why this enemy trade should he gone on with is. to say the least, not illuminating. The arguments brought forth went to show that so long as British goods are at the. right price, then the patriotism of certain councillors waxes high, but if the German goods could he bought for less money, then ” for goodness’ sake let us have them.” Seeing the City Council recently turned down the tender for Tudor battery, owing to its or'gin. and accepted the tender for British goods, how can they, in the face of this, now agree to purchase Tudor spares? Surely it is reasonable to assume the saving to be effected by buying" an enemy battery would be fairly considerable. Upon this basis, why did they not purchase the enemy goods, and effect a saving? Wily is it that they are suddenly alive to the fact that it is worth while going to the foreign market in order that they can save, a certain sum, to the detriment of Britain? ID he logical—having refused the enemy battery—they should stick to their plank, and turn down the enemy spares. A wrong impression has been created by the chairman of the electric power and light department in stating it would be necessary to replace the whole of the plates if British. We tell you. sir, that a ‘ British concern ” —and by the term we mean other than those fed by German gold—would have quoted for those parts required by the council. One would have thought tho authorities would at least have applied to those whom they knew could furnish particulars. The inference is that it was perfectly apparent the authorities preferred a "straightout transaction with an enemy concern for the reason that it would save the ratepayers' money, and would at the same time keep warm Hie eggs in the German nest, the hatching process to bo resumed after the war. V> c address yon with quite an open mind—we do not write in the spirit of a defeated tenderer. We quoted British goods, and lost to British goods, and recognised that two peoplc could not secure the same business: but it appears to us that if the remarks given voice to by a section of the council are not repudiated, we are doing an injustice to the British firm we stand for, as well as to ourselves. It was indeed most gratifying to road the views expressed by the’ minority of the council. It is encouraging to citizens who desire and wish that their funds should not go to swell the Gorman purse, and, indeed, we suggest the thanks of the community are due to Cr .'Sinclair for his outspoken protest, while, on the other hand, it is to he regretted’that what unfortunately represented the majoritv of the council present should have hold such extraordinary views and given expression to them.—We are, etc.. Annan D. Riley and Co.. Ltd. October 8.