UNEMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION.

Evening Star, Issue 19275, 14 June 1926, Page 4

UNEMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —My opinion of tho intellectual ability of our Socialistic friends goes clown a few degrees every time I read any effusion of theirs in tho Press. I am described by Mr J. E. MacManus as a “paradoxical contriw'rsialist.” If my opponent looks up his dictionary ho will find that a paradox is only an “apparent” contradiction of terms. 1 therefore invite Mr MacManus to study a little more closely my statements, and ho will discover that my arguments are based on and contain just logic and common sense. 1 stated that it would he unfair to ask England to accept onr primary produce and then refuse her manufactured articles. Air MacManus does not deny this, and prefers to ignore it simply because he is unable to advance any logical argument to _ justify the course ho proposes. Thinking my other statement more capable of refutation, he concentrates on that, and states tnat wo only have to attract to onr shores immigrants to cause, sustain, or assist our prosperity. If this bo a way out of the difficulty,, then the sooner these consumers of Mr MacManus arrive the better. He overlooks the fact that before these now arrivals can become consumers to assist onr local industries they must he employed, and so wo have a vicious circlo from which there is on escape except by putting tho cart before the horse. Mr MacManus' says tho added population “working hero” would be an additional market for our primary produce. A os, they would when they secured the work. Also tho fact should not be overlooked that these non-arri-vals, supposing them to bo employed, would add to the bulk of our primary produce to he disposed of, and so things would be still where they are now. Such utter nonsense as that in which I o.m accused of wanting to control England’s affairs needs no answer. Of like nature is tho reply to my statement that Mr MacManns’s economic policy would result in complete severance from England. A'onr correspondent pompously a-sks “who demanded severance from England?” No one, Mr MacManus. I merely remarked that such an economic policy'as outlined by him would result in this (if it could bo carried that far) simply because England would refuse to have dealings with such trade people, and, secondly, because we should have to absolutely bar immigration from England. Tho latter part of Mr MacManus’s is pure propaganda, and docs not require correction from me, but if ho wilt concentrate his attention on my argument ho will see that his looked-for remedy is neither practicable nor just. It is not practicable because we could not live unless England or some such country took our primary produce, and they could not take and pay for it if we and other exporters did not take their manufactures. It is not just that any country should ask England or another nation to buy off us what we have to sell, and leave them to fish for markets elsewhere. The whole proposal summed up in one word is impossible.—l am, etc., E.AALF. IThis correspondence is now closed.— Ed. E.S.J