TRADE RECIPROCITY WITH UNITED KINGDOM

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6921, 29 May 1929, Page 4

TRADE RECIPROCITY WITH UNITED KINGDOM

Plea to Business Men

GIVE UNITED KINGDOM MONEY TO BUY OUR PRODUCE

A plea for reciprocity in New Zealand’s trade with the United Kingdom was made by Mr L. Ashcroft-Edwanls, when addressing members of the Palmerston North Citizens ’ Luncheon club yesterday, ... He had been present recently, said the speaker, at the opening of the industrial exhibition at Mastcrton, where he had heard no less than three different speeches in the same tenor. Buy first in Mastcrton ,ha-d been the speakers’ refrain; if the desired goods were not obtainable in Masterton, buy iu New Zealand, failing that, buy in the United Kingdom. To him, it appeared that tins advice should be taken in the reverse order. L: business men bought everything in their own towns or in New Zealand, there would be no money at all, because it was from abroad that our capital came. At the present time, New Zealand bought 45 per cent, of her requirements from tho United Kingdom, and in return tho United Kingdom took anything from 73 to 75 per cent, of the Dominion’s produce. In the face of this it must be remembered that the most economical (aud he used the word in its strictest sense), conditions-nf trade were those of reciprocity. The most perfect trading conditions which could prevail between two countries would be those of perfect balauce —purchases on eacii side being equal. * But what are the actual conditions ? At the present time; New Zealand was buying twice as much from the United States of America as the U.S.A. bought from the Dominion. In addition the States were a closed market to New Zealand exports. They did not want our goods and if these goods shewed any sign of affecting the American market, they would be promptly blockWhcn we were sending away £1 and only receiving 10s back, it did not take Ion" to become a serious loss in intercsv and exchange. All this had to be added to the cost of living and business overhead expenses. “We desire to sell as much New Zealand produce as passible,” concluded the speaker, “like only way to do that, is to go to the open market England. But England can only buy a-j much as she can afford aud we have "ot to give her the money to buy with. In order to do so, we have got to sell her more and she will buy more.”

CREDITORS SUE FOR MONEY OWING THEM

WEEKLY CIVIL COURT.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, judgment by default was entered up by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the following cases: —D. H. Bett (Mr. Merton) v. H. D. Ayson, £3 11s fid, costs £1 8s fid; D. M. George (Mr. Laurcnson) v. W. To Matai, £36 18a Cd, costs £4 18s fid; H. Brown (Mr. Grant; v. I’. Mitchell, £l, costs £1 11s; Innes and Oakley (Mr. Laurcnson) v. E. Lorenz, £5 Is fid, costs £1 16s 6d; Manson and Barr, Ltd. (Mr. Witten) v. M. C. McNabb, £1 14s Bd, costs Ss; Collinson and Cunningkamc, Ltd. (Mr. Laurcnson) v. E. E. Trevithick, £7 7s fid, costs £1 14s 6d; Dalgety and Co., Ltd. (Mr. Cooper) v. J. Pressling, £5, costs £1 16s fid; Bruec and Bai Motors, Ltd. (Mr. Ongley) v. F. Rink, £3 Bs, costs £1 10s Cd; Donald MacDonald (Mr. Abraham) v. P. McGregor, £l9 15s fid, costs £2 14s; D. McDonald (Mr. Abraham) v. T. McDonald, £l4 ss, costs £2 14s; The C. M. Ross Co., Ltd. (Mr. Laurenson) v. S. Stillwell, £3 15s Id, costs £1 3s fid; J. D. Smith (Mr. Ongley) v. W. J. Watts, £9, costs £l 10s 6d; R, H. Spencer, for Dawber Motors Estate (Mr. Gordon) v. G. E. Hickford, £22 2s 3d, costs £4 Is fid; Adams, Ltd. (Mr. Gordon) v. W. Paterson, £1 19s 3d, costs 13s; A. Clarke, "Ltd. (Mr. Gordon) v. W. O’Leary, 7s fid, costs 9s* Alfa Laval Separator Coy. (Mr. Cooper) v. T. McDonald, £2 19s Od, costs £1 5s fid. Judgment Summons. F. J. Watty was ordered to pay H. B. Clapham, Ltd. (Mr. Gordon) the sum of £2 2s Cd forthwith in default three days’ imprisonment.