CORRESPONDENCE

Grey River Argus, 18 March 1941, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

Trade and Land Settlement [To The Editor.] Sir,—l read your leader of 11th. inst. with interest, and regret that I cannot agree with your conclusions. You state that “the Irish famine has no bearing on the question,” but it certainly was the immediate cause of the conversion of Robert Peel, the then Conservative Prime Minister, to Cobden’s idea, and speedily brought about the repeal of the corn laws. I note that you have evaded the questions of the price of land bought for soldier settlement, and the heavy charges that our returned men will have to pay in consequence. You also must be aware that, not only has there been a' 'reduction in the area .of occupied land, but also a reduction in the volume of manufactured goods produced in New Zealand in recent years. Re protection, as alleged by you, we have had plenty of it in New Zealand, with the result as stated. You refer to America', and claim that so-called protection brought about general prosperity there, but, as previously mentioned by me, there are over 40 States that have no tariff barriers against each other, and then there ate the magnificent resources of the United States in its land, oil, and iron . deposits, with the extensive immigration that has taken place in skilled workmen both in factory and land, perhaps more extensive than in any other Immigration of people in history. Would you contend that, if there were no tariff barriers between Mexico In the south, and Canada in the north and the United States, that it would be opposed to the wellbeing of these countries? Or to go further, that if there was Federation as between these countries, it would be a disastrous thing to occur for the people concerned? Take the Commonwealth of Australia- —surely no person in right senses would assert that Federation is a bad thing for the Australian States, which meant the removal of tariff obstruction as between them. It is a great pity that New Zealand did not join the Federation and thereby establish free-trade between Australia and ourselves. I note we are inclined to federate in efforts to win the war. and why not in other relations? I am sorry, Mr. Editor, that you are an isolationist—l avow myself to be a federationist—anxious to bring about goodwill amongst the nations, by federation and free trade, with the object of preventing wars, and establishing general prosperity. 1 notice you quote the attempt of the late Joseph Chamberlain to impose food taxes on the people of Britain. Well, he got his deserts, having to resign from the Conservative Government that rejected his policy. “Reynolds Newspaper” at the time had a cartoon. “A rat . leaving the Sinking Ship.” You must also be happy in your inference when you know that Chamberlain brought about the schism in the ranks of the most progressive political party in Britain at the time, over Home Rule, and consequently hampered progress. You also quote the “Times.” Well, I am not taking my cue from that paper, which is the head and front of reaction, but as regards exports from Britain. I have no obubt that they will expand after the war, and, as to her imports, they must of necessity continue and increase . in volume and value as the borrowing

countries and individuals pay interest on what they have had, mainly in manufactured goods. Do you contend that we should repudiate our obligations to pay our just debts? We have our railways, telegraphs, telephones, buildings, roads, etc., and credit/borrowed by firms and individuals to pay for; and in consequence we have to export a' surplus over our imports in our trade, and this must go on indefinitely, or until, if it is possible, to repay our debts, and then make our trade balance. I here remark in answer to your assertion that capitalists extorted values that should have gone to workers— they did nothing of the sort, but. found markets for manufactured goods such as cotton, railway equipment, telegraph, telephone electrical requisites, and a host _of other manufactured goods, which any unprejudiced person will admit, employed millions of people and increased population which otherwise would remain,.to sav the least, stagnant. , . , To conclude, as regards asserted “cheap labour,” there was an eight-hour-working day in England when it was ten hours in America, and for the hours worked, considering the cost, of living, etc., the British mechanic was perhaps as well off as the American; certainly much better off than in European and Asiatic countries.— Thanking you in anticipation. I am. etc.. HENRY BETTS. Reefton. 13th. March. 1941.