NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1931. TARIFF RETALIATION

Northern Advocate, 17 August 1931, Page 4

NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY

MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1931. TARIFF RETALIATION

Registered for Transmission Through the Post as a Newspaper.

Australia has just received a forcible reminder that while the raising of a tariff wall may be easy of accomplishment, it is a game at which two can play. It came about in this way. A Sydney firm proposed to send a consignment of the best Australian flour to Shanghai, and asked the Municipal Chinese Chamber of Commerce to recommend it. The frank reply was that the chamber does not wish to introduce Australian goods into the country until the Australian restrictions against China are modified. The rebuff, although Australians have brought it upon themselves, is unfortunate. China offers a promising market, Australia’s trade with it is substantial. and when stability returns to the Republic, the opportunities should increase. But Australians have placed a heavy tariff on many classes of imports from China, while with others the prohibition is absolute. It is quite natural that the Chinese .should resent a state of affairs which is one-sided, and should express their dissatisfaction. “Do as you would be done by” is a motto to be observed by communities no less than by individuals. The “Sydney Morning Herald” says that the Chinese attitude is symptomatic of a regrettable tendency of our times, namely, to build the Customs barrier ever higher, and very frequently the additions provoke reprisals elsewhere. Once nations begin to regard tariffs as expedients for segregating themselves from commercial contacts with the world without, it is difficult to see where the process is going to end. Foqr years ago an economic conference met at Geneva under the auspices of the League. It was unique of its kind. All civilised countries and a great variety of interests were represented. The personnel of over 500 included prominent captains of industry, financiers, labour leaders, sociologists, statisticians, and economists. Many of them came ! from countries which are wedded to high protection. In such a gathering considerable differences of opinion were, prima facie, to be expected. The manufacturers, for example, who were there in strength, would presumably favour a system which shields them from external competition. The labour leaders might have argued that protection kept up wages. But the conference held no ’brief for high tariffs. On the contrary, it condemned _ the policy in pursuance of which many countries are surrounding themselves with unseal cable ramparts. It accepted the principle that tariffs should only be raised at long intervals and after due notice. Finally it definitely committed itself to a recommendation that the time has come to call a halt, and that Governments should recognise that the advantages to be derived from obstacles which hamper trade are largely illusory. Advice coming from such a quarter should have eom-

mantled respect, but it has fallen j on deaf ears. Constantly we hear | of deliberate retaliation in some, shape or another against tariff j measures which have prejudiced! the export business of the nation ( thus spurred to remonstrance. In this fashion France lias retorted to Australia, New to Canada, and Canada to the Cnited States, while on the Continent of Furope, especially among the succession and the enlarged States, there is a veritable maze of barbed wire entanglements. Many Governments have discarded the original conception of hie proper functions of protection, which are to raise revenue and foster infant , industries, tool weak, in the absence * of shelter, to survive foreign competition. These purposes were legitimate, but now there is a to run riot in the matter of tariffs and to go to ‘ extremes which cease to be scientifically justifiable or profitable. Thus, as the *‘Morning Herald ” says, “protection implies defence, but too often it is regarded as a weapon of aggression and an offensive is followed by a counter offensive. We deplore the ‘race’ in armaments, and are warned that it is inimical to. the cause of peace. We should not forget that the ‘race’ in tariffs is every whit as keen and that thoughtful people believe it to be as, great a menace.”