I"s Protection Good For The Nation?”—-- No!

Northland Age, Volume 27, Issue 40, 21 October 1927, Page 7

I"s Protection Good For The Nation?”—--No!

Criticism ot a Lecture, Delivered by Mr. J. A, Frostick.

Before the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce.

May. 1921. By C. H. NIGHTINGALE, F.R.A.

(N.Z.) (Continued)

As tor New Zealand, she is, in my opinion, well adapted for manufacturing, and should, with development of her wonderful hydro-electric potentialities, become in time pre-eminently so. Now let me carry the argument further afield. Everyone is agreed that internal free trade is good for America, that any other policy would be ridiculous. Yet there is not a single argument of any weight which Mr Frostick can advance in favour of New Zeeland being “self-con-tained" (from a manufacturing point of view) that I cannot match in support of protection for the individual States of America, one against another. Thus lud’ana is pre-eminently an agricultural Stale. R*asouing on protectionist lines why should Indiana consent to be a nonmanufacturing community, and remain poor, as Mr. ,f rostick asserts agnca.tural countries a.ways are? Why not be self conuincdi Why not a tariff wall against neighbouring manufacturing States, so that she might “tmpioy her own people ?” Why not an a .noaal 15,000 workers? Is it not ruL.GUS to import ’he product of highly skilled labour ! Why the “economic waste” at sending out r.uv material and getting it baek manutactuied ? Why not the family idea—our own people first? and so cm right through the pieee. Another in ng, Araeric- is a world unto herself, with trade absolutely free as between the States. Yet we see manufacturing States ccming into being in full competition with other States whose secondary industries were established long before. This according to the protectionlet lh»orv could uot happen without the “fostering fleet 01 duties. Further, if it is f • id <or New York >0 trade freely with California, why should it be bad for her to do so witQ Qutocc ? Wnat protectionists appear to want is tue earlu to be divided up iuto a vast lumber of watertight compartments, each practically “self-contained,” and they seem to think that each such compartment would be advantaged, and that each separate community would be aole to produce, under the stimulus of internal competition, ail goods cheaper than the wuiiu’s duty free price. Some of them even appear to bold the idea that exports »ould, under these conditions, continue just as before. All countries exporting, non: importing, that in fact would be the protectionist millennium 1

Vi nat freetraders want to know is whv should we etK ourselves otf from the manliest and manifold advantages which the world affords by means of exchange. The truth is that free trade will develop a country along the lines it is best adapted for at the time, whatever they may be. It will make a country richer than would be possible under any other fiscal policy, and wili thus make it easier to imsocial conditions.

Hitherto I have considered the pu ely economic aspect but on moral and e'hica! grounds protection stands condemned. Gladstone said the word “protection ’ atood for oppression, delusion, fraud. W oodrow Wilson denounced the American tariff because he said it violated every principle of good Government. Everyone knows what he meant, and they know in their hearts it is true. In America it has spelt corruption, the bribery of Pi ess and Parliament. Protection is wartariff war—an ever present menace to the comity of nations and the peace of the world. We advocate free trade for New Zealand because inter alia it will help to keep ooiitics pure, will benefit the great mas ot the people, and also because it tends to uplift all nations with whom we trade.

In conclusion, I would like to enter a strong protest against the misleading figures which appear in the appendix of Mr Frostick’s pamphlet. These figures show that America’s foreign trade in 1914 resulted in a credit balance of 56 millions sterling, and that this credit had increased in 1919 to 709 millions stalling, which figures are compared with Britain s trade for the same ’ears, exhibiting a debit baiane of 71 andbt9 millions sterling re- , (I pass over the fact that no mention is made of Britain,s freight earnings.) The disingtnuousness of these figures is such that I am astonished the Inditfrial Association of Canteibury should print them without any qualifying

; remark. One would think that Britain

1 took no part in the war I Or that conditions since the Armistice gave her any real chance to recoup or recover in one year I I believe that the figures and the whole four pages of comments are intended to mislead, but if so, they will tail, for though the average man may not trouble a great deal about economics, he knows all about the war and its effects on the trade of Britain and America. He knows that the foreign trade of the world was thrown into the lap of the U S A (and a few minor Rations) while Britain and all the other large nations were “down and out.”

The late Right Hon. W F Massey, speaking at a banquet in London, is reported to have said. . but if you give the Overseas Dominions to understand that there is a market for the things which they can produce, they will produce them and they will come back with the money which you give them . . . and spend it in manufactured goods.” If Mr Frostick and his friends have their way nothing of the sort wili happen they will see to it that the manufactured goods of Britain are carefully shut out. The End.