PROTECTION IN BRITAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20132, 18 December 1928, Page 14

PROTECTION IN BRITAIN.

Sir, —The whole truth is not cm the side of, free-traders or protections s. In a. compromise or combination of theso apparently opposing policies seems io lie tho truest and wisest course. I stand for tho removal of all unjust restrictions of trade, whether domestic, Imperial or international. With this position all may but the question is, Wh,.-,t restrici tions are unjustT To which I would reply. Those which are contrary to the golden r» lo and, or, not reciprocal. Like free-trade tho golden rule is ideal and hould bo applied wherever practicable. JJut, in warring world, self-deience compels us to fall back on the principle of reciprocity, /in eyo for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is just and right. No matter how \ve may hate poison-gas and high protective tariffs we are compelled to, and justified in, proportional use of su :h things on those who employ such against us. This universe is moral; individuals and nations must reap as they sow; aggressors in every form of selfish war/are must sooner or later balance their account. All trading is essentially barter and may bo direct or circular. Because of circular trading it is not necessary for one country to sell directly to another as much as it buys, in order to balance its account. But, whether the trading is direct or circular, the free-trade or low tariff country must pay more to the high tariff country than it receives in return in order technically to balance accounts. For this reason trading between countries with disparate tariffs is not fair and the general recognition of this unfairness acts in restraint of international trading, wherover this unfairness exists. Well might expert economists of tho League of Nations enter tt plea in behalf of a general reduction of high and unscientific (inequitable) tariffs! Peace pacts which ignore theso economic aggressions are but_ half-pie remedies of existing wrongs. In international law nations have a right wholly or partially to prohibit tho ingress of whom or what they will. But no nation has a moral right to offer insult to others by nither migration or customs laws. The problem is complicated by the fact that no country is wholly free-trade or protectionist. Elusive tariffs obtain. Until such time as all nations are prepared to adopt t'ree-trade, 'or some uniform low protective policy (for revenue only), tariff wars must continue. Nothing short of economic isolation and universal approbrium awaits the ration or nations which force their own standards of living up and those of others down by unfair protective policies. The time appears to be ripe for the TTnited States to enter the ot Nations and make it a really efficient instrument for world-government. J. G. Hughes.