SCORE OF BRITISH RETALIATION.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 15 July 1933, Page 8

SCORE OF BRITISH RETALIATION.

MANUFACTURERS RETIRE FROM TARIFF COMMISSION.

WELLINGTON, Last Night.

An unexpected development took place at to-day’s sitting of the Tariff Commission when the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation applied for permission to suspend all arrangements for the taking of further evidence on its behalf. This action was taken as a result of an interpretation placed upon the reported statements made by a British Cabinet Minister from which it is inferred that if the Dominion did not pursue a policy of reducing customs duties its products would be subject to a preferential duty and to a cpiota. In the circumstances the federation believed it would be futile to continue with its representations. The request was granted. Mr A. E. Mander, general secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, said he desired to bring under the notice of the Commission the following extract from a newspaper report of an address by Mr W. J. Poison, M.P., president, to the conference of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union: —

‘•A definite statement had been made by a British Minister that if New Zealand did not reduce tariffs the Dominion would bo subject firstly, to a preferential duty, and secondly, to a restriction of New Zealand imports into Great Britain.”

“In our view,” Mr Hander said, “this statement, if authentic, constitutes a direct threat to the New Zealand Government if it does not pursue a particular line of policy, namely, the reduction of tariff duties. On the presumption that this is correct, it appears that a continuation of the present inquiry is rendered futile, and there would appear to he little use in New Zealand manufacturers continning to come forward and give evidence. 0 We view the matter in ft very grave light, and application is now made to the Commission to suspend for a few days all arrangements for the taking of the manufacturers’ evidence, allowing us these' few days in which to reconsider our position.” Professor Murphy; I don’t know that -we can tahe auv cognisance of a report in the newspapers of a hearsay remark made at sua e conference. What evidence is there that any British Minister said this? Who said it, and when and where did he say it? We ore not committed by the remarks of speakers at Farmers’ Union conferences. I don’t think we can allow that to affect our work. Mr Mander: This statement was made by a responsible public man in a presidential address. Profe=sor Murphy: What business is that of ours?

Mr Marnier: It is no business of yours, sir, but a great deal of business of ours. Professor Murphy: Surely it is a matter between you and him. There is no evidence that any responsible Minister ever said this. Mr J. B. Gow; In any case, we have our order of reference laid down by the Ottawa Conference. To deal with any remarks made about a country are no concern of ours. Mr S. Craig: The position is that certain appointments have been made by your organisation, and if you don’t wish to bring forward a witness during the next few days you can apply to have the matter postponed. Mr Mander: Yes, sir. That is the whole substance of the application. Dr. Craig: We have no objection to that. Will you indicate when you wish to resume? Mr Mander: Yes. We will do that if we want to resume.