PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

Evening Star, Issue 21715, 9 May 1934, Page 9

PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

HOMELAND AND DOMINIONS MR THOMAS DEFENDS OTTAWA (British Official Wireless.) Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. RUGBY, May 7. During a debate in the House of Commons on dominion affairs to-night, Mr J. H. Thomas cited figures to sjiow that despite the economic depression of the last few years every’ dominion affected by the Ottawa agreement had increased its trade with Britain, and that Britain had incx-eascd its trade with each of them. The fact that while world trade had gone down trade within the Empire had improved was sufficient justification for Ottawa. Ho said ho had received abundant evidence of the appreciation by tho dominions of the way that Britain was conducting her side of the Ottawa agreements. Referring specially to New Zealand, he said a number of people there had urged upon their Government that if all tariffs against British goods were removed Britain would take everything New Zealand cared to send. The New Zealand communication in regard to this was not taken by the British Government as an offer, because it was perfectly obvious that no Now Zealand Government could entertain such a position. Mr Thomas pointed out that 25 per cent, of New Zealand’s revenue was from tariffs, and ho said it was impossible to reconcile tho position whereby one dominion ho given particular preference against, another in the same commodity’.

HOSTILE MOTION REJECTED LONDON, May 7. Replying to Sir Herbert Samuel, Mr Thomas said: “If New Zealand made an actual offer of Ereetradc ■ Britain would then bo forced to demand the same treatment from Australia or treat Australian goods differently from New Zealand goods. We did not tako New Zealand’s inquiry as an offer because we knew perfectly well that no New Zealand Government could entertain the proposition for two minutes. How could we give one dominion preference over another in the same commodity ?” Sir Herbert Samuel’s motion for a reduction in the dominions’ vote was defeated by 207 to 38. The minority consisted of Labourites, Samuelito Liberals, and one Conservative. BRITISH PRESS COMMENT LONDON, May 8. The Press lias not hesitated to recognise the prominence of New Zealand in the House of Commons debate in which Sir Herbert Samuel hotly attacked the Government’s refusal of bet “ offer ” as the possible turning point in Imperial policy. The ‘ News-Chronicle’s ’ parliamentary correspondent declares that the Ministry had a thoroughly uncomfortable time, Sir Herbert Samuel’s slashing attack touching sore spots. “ Nobody looked more uncomfortable than Mr Thomas, who worked hard to give the impression that he had really done New Zealand a kindness by demonstrating that her demand for Erectrado must bo resultless. This attempt to question the genuineness of the dominion’s inquiry neither pleased nor impressed the House, and it was characterised by Sir Percy Harris as a most unfortunate suggestion.” The ‘ News-Chronicle,’ continuing the attack in a leader, asserts that the debate emphasised the dilemma in which contradictory policies have involved the Government. “It has for a time been obvious that the Ottawa policy is nureconcilablo with economic nationalism, . and now they have collided. The Government, before Mr Elliot embarked on his perilous adventure of reorganising agriculture by creating an artificial scarcity, made a bargain with the dominions which is now hung like the Ancient Mariner’s albatross round its neck. The debate disclosed that the Government was abandoning its loudly professed enthusiasm for Empire trade. Mr Thomas’s was easily the worst possible defence of a difficult position. It was obviously the way to offend New Zealand to suggest that her inquiry was insincere. Even if the defence had been as good as it was bad it would not have been worth that price. New Zealand’s offer was a splendid opportunity to begin forming a group of all nations willing to exchange goods on a low tariff or no tariff basis. A deplorable aspect of the Government’s refusal was the rejection of the most promising-chance yet presented for a move towards sounder wor(d economy.” ‘ The Times ’ considers that the House of Commons episode was disproportionately magnified, and adds: “It was merely a peg on which Sir Herbert Samuel hung a long Freetvacle speech. It was a poor peg for the purpose, since the chief desire of New Zealand producers is to eliminate foreign competition, not to see competition thrown open to the world. Moreover, as Mr Thomas showed, there is little to justify the reproaches of the Government as too nationalistic or unduly tender towards foreign trade. Mr Forbes’s own statement showed that New Zealand Ministers never doubted the British attitude since both the Ottawa and Economic Conferences demonstrated that Britain could not give one dominion what she denied the others. Mr Thomas convincingly answered those who are desirous of returning to Freetrade that never was or advancing to so-called Frcctradc that never will be. A steady market can be achieved only by the co-operation of producers, which all Governments should aim to promote.” The ‘Daily Telegraph’ says: “Mr Thomas had a convincing case. It was agreed at Ottawa that each Government’s first duty was In its own producers; |.o Kmpirc producers;

and, thirdly, to the foreigner. Great Britain kept the spirit and letter of the bond and had increased the proportions of her imports from the dominions to a larger extent than they increased their imports’from her.” AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. ADELAIDE, May 8, A statement of Australia’s attitude on the restriction of exports was made by the Prime Minister (Mr J. A. Lyons) in Adelaide Town Hall to-day. Ho said Australia would not adopt a policy of limitation of exports unless it was unavoidable, the initiative resting on the United Kingdom. He warned foreign countries that if they did not buy freely from Australia they could not expect a continuance of Australia’s custom. So far no proposal had been made by the British Government with regard to res Miction. “ The best way to avoid regulation of exports is to expand foreign markets, and Australia is now seeking expansion of her foreign markets and foreign trade.” QUESTION OF COUNTER-MEASURES XO NEED EOR IMMEDIATE ACTION. TOKJ.O, If ay S, (Received May 9, at 11.-15 a.in.) Air Eusajiro Abe, chairman of the Cotton Spinners’ Federation, said that Mr Ruuciman’s announced cpiotas woidd mainly affect Japanese trade in Hongkong, the Straits Settlements, and East Africa. “There is no hurry about counter measures,” ho said, “ wo can well afford to wait while carefully studying the effects. 1 doubt whether the measures will relieve Lancashire as expected.”