EMPIRE TRADE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 9 August 1924, Page 15

EMPIRE TRADE.

MR MASSEY’S STATEMENT. “THE TRUTH IN A NUTSHELL. ’’ A NATION OF HUMBUGS. LONDON, May In. -A good deal of what has been written during this last week on the subject of Imperial preference centres -round the report of an interview with Mr Massey which was cabled to this country, and which was used without exception by London and provincial papers. In this the Prime Minister said that his strongest reason for assisting to promote Empire preference had been that every item as arranged for was another tie to assist in keeping the Empire together.

“'What is happening now does not affect our loyalty to the Empire in the very slightest. British we are, and British we intend to remain, and I hope that some day .our fellow-citizens in Britain will come round to a- better way of thinking, and will, learn to look upon such matters, with ap Empire spirit rather than from the narrower outlook of what wilt suit some particular section of the community.” ‘‘ As we expected, ’ ’ says the Saturday Review, “the Government’s decision against the, new Imperial preferences has created the bitterest disappointment in the Dominions. This is particularly the case in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Mr Bruce says that Australia must, look elsewhere lior trade —if possible within the Empire, but wherever she can find an opening. Last .week he stated that Australia would probably reach an agreement with Canada, but could only do so by passing on to her the benefits she now r gave to Great Britain. Mr Massey declares that every item of the Imperial Conference programme was adopted for the specific reason of keeping the Empire together, and he voices New Zealand’s feeling of deep regret that the.present Government lacks the true Empire spirit (which is the whole truth in a nutshell).” TO BREED ESTRANGEMENT.

According to the Yorkshire Herald, the King uttered a specially sagacious remark the other day, •when he said that it was the duty of everyone in the British Empire, even at some sacrifice, “to develop the family estate.” The resolution to turn, down the proposals for Imperial preference, this journal.goes on.to say, ‘.‘is. not the way to foster unity; it is the way to breed estrangement and resentment between the different parts of the Empire. The decision, of. the Socialist Government ha* naturally aroused these feelings in the Dominions because the people regard the policv of the Home Government as a slight upon them, and an ill-requitement for the trade preferences they have for years granted to the Motherland. . . . If we are to be one family and to be kept together for our own and the world’s good, something more of this spirit of give and take would repay the family a hundredfold and tend, as Sir Joseph Cook has observed; towards the final objective of making the Empire brighter, stronger, and more prosperous. ”

“A great many people in this country,” begins an article op Imperial preference in the East Anglian Times, ‘ ‘ will agre? with Mr Massey, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, that the apparent attitude of the present Government towards Empire preference is not in accordance with the spirit of the. Empire, nor aii encouragement towards the attainment of a self-supporting Empire. ” LURE OF DOMINIONS’ CONCESSIONS. Sir Harry Brittain writes to various newspapers on- a phase of the preference question. “On the morrow of that unlucky day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gaily proclaimed his Government’s, determination to ruin the British motor industry,” he says, “it was announced that the makers of Goodrich tires proposed to manufacture these articles in Lancashire as well as in their home town of Akron, Ohio, U.S.A. “That simple proposition has been wildly hailed by the survivors of Richard Cobden as being, somehow or other, a triumph for Free Trade principles, not to say a complete justification for the abolition of the McKenna duties. Yet it will be evident to more normal minds that if, by this act, testimony is being paid to anything save the business sense which has made that particular firm one of the largest lof its kind anywhere, the ‘triumph’ belongs more rightly to us who advocate a preferential tariff. At the present moment. Australia gives British tires a tariff preference of 15 per cent, over foreign tires, and so does New Zealand; in South Africa it is 3 per cent.; in Canada 131 per cent. Of course, this powerful American organisation secures these benefits by settling amongst us; and while, as patriots, we may regret that it should be thus left to Americans to create work for our unemployed at a time when the policy of a British Government is about to have precisely the opposite effect, that consideration will make us welcome all the more gladly these enterprising creators of British wealth. In doing so let us at least have., the decency to acknowledge the lure ; of our Dominions’ concessions to the Mother'Country, concessions which, by the way, we have just coldly declined to reciprocate.” A NATION OF HUMBUGS. A Tooley Street importer has something to say iu The Grocer about the strange mentality which makes it possible for English people to pay more for foreign produce when they can get Dominion produce of the same quality for less money. “Many packers in Canada,” he says, “are sending over to this country the year through the best they can produce in the way of bacon. Canadian bacon,• I say it without fear of contradiction, is as palatable as any bacon the greatest epicure could wish to eat. The butchering and selection is best of any bacon coming to England, not excluding Irish and Danish bacon. Despite this, the wholesale trade, the retail trade, and the consuming public are all deliberately boycotting Canadian bacon and paying money to foreigners, particularly the Danes and Swedes, the price of the former being anything from SBs to 995, whereas Canadian bacon is hanging at 70s to 84s. It is no secret when I tell you that the cost of Canadian bacon to-day to put down in London is approximately 87s. The reason, in the writer’s mind, is Government control, which has not been in force since 9th August, 1919. There is no need to tell any reader what damage the Government did to all brands of not. only /Canandiag but American bacon as well, during their brief but costly reign. I have not mentioned New Zealand and Australian butter, but to-day first-grade New Zea-

land butter will sell ouly at 170 s to 178 s; Australian first-grade 160 s; •whereas the Danish f.o.b. price is 2055, which equals 210 sin London. Are we as a nation humbugs, or have -we lost, our sense of relative values?” THE BEEF TRADE.

The Field has an article on Empire Meat Protection, and deplores the loss of Australia and New Zealand as beef exporters. “This country,” it said, cannot regard with apathy the attitude of New Zealand and Australia concerning meat production. When in England last year Mr Massey stated that New Zealand could have no hope of developing a profitable trade •in beef with Great Britain. The great meat combines had so complete a hold of the competing sources that he and his colleagues in New Zealand had to abandon the struggle and to devote themselves to other forms of production. There may be substantial compensation in the. assurance he felt able to give that the fanners of New Zealand, with the enlightened guidance of a sympathetic Government, would be able to defy competition in mutton and dairy produce; but it is not comforting to feel that a promising source of beef contributions has been lost through the squeezing activities of great combines. “It,- is now reported that Mr Bruce has been forced to the same conclusion on behalf of Australia. After very elaborate and painstaking inquiries the Prime Minister of Australia has had to admit the wisdom of the decision arrived at. earlier by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and to advise the farming industry of his country to turn its attention to other pursuits than the production of beef for the British markets.

“The consequences may be of less importance to Australia and New Zealand than to this country, but so long as we are dependent, in large measure upon external sources for supplies of essential articles of food, we cannot view with equanimity developments that effectively curtail output of, and competition in, those commodities. The question demands serious and impartial consideration in the interests of the consumers, rather than of the home producers. The latter would be immediately affected only should the same grasping combines be able to extend their activities to home, supplies and gain such control as would interfere with prices of both farmers and town dwellers. Their endeavours in this direction should be closely watched and checked.— Wellington Post correspondent.