THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1905 THE ANTI-TRUST BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13050, 15 December 1905, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1905 THE ANTI-TRUST BILL.

There will be little difference of opinion upon the general principle that no foreign syndicate should be allowed to wage commercial war upon any industry in a State, by selling goods below cost, with the deliberate intention of compensating itself at the expense of the public, after that industry has' been destroyed: But we may very well question the wisdom or public policy of such sweeping measures as the AntiTrust Bill now before the Australian House of Representatives. This Bill proposes hot a sufficient, though drastic, remedy for specific evils, but a general prohibition of certain commercial methods and the prevention of importation where this prohibition •might have been ignored. Under the plea that it is necessary to prevent the " dumping" of certain manufactures into the Commonwealth—which dumping could have been easily prevented by a very simple enactmenta new policy is ushered in, the effect of which, if carried out on. the lines of the Bill, will speedily be to prohibit the entry of any goods upon the making of which lovce? wages'.-'hfid been paid than would have • bes.;» paid in the Commonwealth. W- have only to extend this to the logical and consistent exclusion of all products upon the production of which lower wages were paid than would have to be paid in Australia to see that rice, tea, coffee, and cotton would be treated like American " harvesters"- and British tobaccos. Nor is this all; cheap purchases made abroad, goods offered for sale at "less than cost," or goods upon the selling of which " disproportionately large remuneration" is allowed, are equally anathematised. An end is put to all '' bargains," as well as to all " dumpings." An iron wall is run round Australia with dark entry ways which many unwitting importers may find out to be nothing better than traps. The inevitable effect must be to impede and hamper all trading as .well as what- there would be a general agreement to term obnoxious and unfair trading. It actually superannuates the protective system as clearly designed and defined by Parliament into a terrorist system under which any importer would be at the mercy of some interested informer. The effect ol this upon trade and commerce must be bad, and though this may please the extreme protectionists it should not please those moderate protectionists who are prepared to make reasonable sacrifices to foster and support local industries, but do not wish to set up -a Chinese Wall against the trade and commerce of the rest of the world.

There is undoubtedly a tendency towards commercial exclusion visible all over the world. Every country, excepting the United Kingdom, has set up commercial barriers against its friends and neighbours as well as against its enemies ; and the United Kingdom, in spite of the Bannerman revival, is rapidly trending the same way. But while all countries are inclined to set up barriers Australia has a mania for barrier-building. Notcontent with excluding Japanese, Chinese, and Hindoos, she proposes to exclude goods manufactured in Japan, China, India, or anywhere else where labour is paid less than in Melbourne or Sydney. She not only intends to exclude all undesirable immigrants, but to extend the embargo to all undesirable goods, the definition of " undesirable" in each case being given by those whom exclusion will momentarily advantage. We say "momentarily" because it is quite impossible for any permanent advantage to accrue to anybody from a policy the general purport of which must necessarily be to increase the cost of living. For though nobody doubts that a sufficiently powerful combination, organised to throttle competition and then to tax the public by unduly and extortionately raising prices, is a menace to the community, yet it is equally notable that some of the greatest public benefits and some of the greatest reductions in price— following upon increase in productive efficiency— are owing to the same commercial method of combination. The right of workmen to set the rate of wages, of dairymen to set the price of milk and butter, of bakers. and butchers to set the price of bread and meat, must always be judged by the results in each specific case. The effect may be good or it may be bad ; but when it is bad public opinion is not so weak that it cannot protect national interests, and when it is good ._ w hy should we outlaw it? It would not be reasonable that we should bar our ports to an article simply because it was made at cheaper rates than it could be made for in Auckland, yet this would be the effect of anti-trust legislation on Commonwealth lines. In fact, any import trade, in tea or in timber, in cottons, in reapers, or in pocket-knives, would be situated much as were the citizens of Doge-governed Venice. An accusation dropped into the mouth of the Melbourne lion, a secret investigation in some departmental ante-room, and the importer is notified that the port is closed against him, and that if he objects he can bring sin action against the Crovre - There is no more necessity for- this blow! a'ii fcyade and commerce than tbexv: is for sweeping all trusts and. combinations into the same net. The wiser policy is to touch trade and commerce as little as possible,

and the safest remedy is to deal specifically with' every foreign combination as it arises and if its effects are sufficiently injurious to justify counter-attack. Fov there is ».o question about our ability to protect our legitimate industries ,if we chose to do so, and there need be no great hurry in doing so. For when once it became established that any deliberate attack by a foreign combination upon our local industries or local traders would be dealt with by Parliament, these attacks could no longer be profitable and would therefore cease to be made. '