The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1923. EMPIRE PREFERENCE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11659, 25 October 1923, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1923. EMPIRE PREFERENCE

Mr. Bruce, the Australian Commonwealth. Premier, Toioed at the earliest opportunity,, after the opening of the Empire Economic Conference, the very natural desire of the British dominions for a preference from Britain corresponding to the preferences which they, respectively, have already granted the Mother Country. .Given that the policy of the Empire is to develop into inter-imperial trade and make the British Empire as far as possible selfsupporting, this desire is undoubtedly as proper as it is natural. But, unfortunately, Mr Bruce allowed himself to place too much stress on the alleged need for tariff preferences on the dominions’ exports to Britain of meat, corn, dairy produce, a.nd other foodstuffs. In 60 doing, as very quickly and very clearly developed, both at the Conference table and outside the Conference chamber, he was simply running his head against a stone wall; and it is well that this faot should be fully understood here in Now Zealand and in the other dominions concerned. The cost of living is already high enough, in all conscience, in the Old Country; and any Government, which, fin face of that fact, and in face of the further fact that there are still a million and a quarter of unomi>loyed at (Homo, proposed any taxes on food, 'would simply 'be inviting disaster at the polls. Mr Stanley Baldwin, in view of his •election pledges, would be compelled to •appeal to the country before endeavouring to introduce a system of preferential tariffs on food; and the debacle that in 1908 overtook the Conservative Party as a result of the (Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain's “raging and tearing tariff propaganda,’’ as it was called, affords such an object lesson as to the unwisdom of advocating food taxes for Britain, that it is very safe to say that Mr Baldwin will never undertake another such campaign. In the dominions it is all •very well to pooh-pooh “the big loaf versus the little loaf’’ cry; and the argument that the preferential tariffs on Empire foodstuffs might bo balanced by remitting the existing food taxes—that is to say, the taxes on tea, sugar, cocoa, etc.—may seem very feasible. 'But, in Britain, with her memories cf the old Corn Eaw days of famine and unemployment, the opposition to any tax on corn is very real and deepseated ; and the free-traders experience little difficulty in convincing the people that the effects of taxes on meat and dairy produce must be very similar to those of the old taxes on corn. .They point out, too, that taxes orf tea,

sugar, and cocoa, which are not produced at Home, operate merely as re-’-venue taxes, putting into the Exchequer except for the unavoidable wholesalers’ and retailers’ profits oh the taxes—the full amount that they take out of the pockets of the people; whereas the taxes on corn, meat, and dairy produce would be protective as well as preferential, putting into the ‘pockets of the farmers at Home—and, ultimately, into the pockets of “the farmers of the farmers,” that is to say, the big landowners —considerably more than would go either into the Imperial Exchequer or in preference to the dominions.

The agricultural interests at Home would, of course, strongly support any proposal for preferential taxes on food 'But when it comes to voting strength—and it is voting strength that counts in such matters —they are nowhere as compared with the great industrial centres. Moreover, it is very certain that the more strongly the agricultural interests supported any such proposal, the more suspicious the working classes would be, and the more strongly they would oppose it. It is almost an article of faith with them that the bigger the profits the farmers get, the more they can afford to pay in rent, and the more the landlords can and will compel them to pay in rent. In fact, not a few farmers have a distinctly uneasy feeling that that is the ease. Imagine, then, what would be the effect of an anti-preference campaign adopting as its slogan, as was done in the Tariff Reform fight of 1903 to 19C6, the twoedged question, “Will you tax the food of the people to raise the rents of the dukes? or will you tax the rents of the dukes to untax the food of the people?” The untaxing of food referred to being, of course, the repeal of the existing taxes on tea, sugar, cocoa, dried fruits, and so forth. It would probably mean a defeat of the pro-preference forces at least as signal as that which overtook Mr Joseph Chamberlain in 1906. This may seem to some to be too strong a statement of the position, but it will not seem so, we venture to say, to any who have made any real study of the great Tariff Reform fight at the beginning of this century. Take, for example, the striking figures by means of which Sir Leo Chiozza Money showed that, while increasing the cost of the people’s food at Home by some £16.300,000 a year, Mr Chamberlain’s food tax'proposals would have meant a colonial preference of only £1,600,000 a - year for the 12,000,000 of white popple in the Britains overseas —less, that is to say, than 3s per head per annum; less even than a penny per head per week 1 His taxes on foreign food, Sir Leo showed, would have yielded £5,950,000 for the Imperial Exchequer—foreign corn, 132,000,000 ciwt., at 6d per cwt., £3,300,000; foreign meat, £27,000,000, at 5 per cent., £1,350,000; foreign dairy produce, £26,000,000, at o per cent., £1,300,000. The increased price of colonial produce, the preference to the colonies, would have amounted to £1,600,000 —colonial com, 35,000,000 cwt., at 6d per cwt., £875,000; colonial meat, £7,500,000, at 5 per cent., £375,000; colonial dairy produce, £7,000,000, at 5 per cent., £350,000. While the increased cost of Home-grown produce would have been no less than £8,750,000 —Home-grown corn, 160,000,000 owt., at 6d per cwt., £4,000,000; Home-grown meat, £45,000,000, at 5 per cent., £2,250,000; Home-grown dairy produce, £50,000,000, at 5 per cent., £2,500,000. Thus, of the total burden on the food of the people at Home, the British farmers, and eventually the British “farmers of the farmers,” would have got rather more than half; while the colonial preference would have been less than one-tenth. That is to say, out of every additional pound that the people of the British Isles had to pay for their food, upwards *of ten shillings would have gone to the big landowners of the British Isles; rather less than 2s would have gone in colonial preference; and the balance would have gone into the Exchequer. Surely, a very wasteful method this of giving colonial preference! The figures today would, of course, be very different from those of twenty years ago. The values of foodstuffs are very materially higher. But that only strengthens the argument against the taxation of food; and when the position once gets back to normal, it is pretty certain that the proportions of Home-grown, foreign, and colonial foodstuffs—whatever the actual figures may be—will bo very much the same as at the beginning of the century. What the attitude of the English people is likely to be towards any proposals to tax food is shown by a recent cartoon in “Punch,” headed “Tho New Smitlifield Martyr.” In this the British public is shown tied to the stake, with blazing faggots, labelled “Inflated Meat Prices,” “Ruinous Meat Prices,” “Unfair Meat Prices,” beneath him; while the butchers, with their cleavers, dance merrily around him. Cleanly though the dominions have an undoubted right to return preferences, it would not he wise to strive for tariff preferences on food. Much the better way, we hold, would be to urge tho desirability of giving a preference in the shape of reduced freights on foodstuffs. This would moan cheaper food for the people at Home; and the propdsal would, therefore, enlist the support, instead of the opposition, of the great mass of the voters. The British Trade Commissioner fMr N Elmslio) told us, it is true, in his address last week at tho “Y” Club, that, m view of the present costs of running, the steamer companies cannot possibly reduce freights, in any now being run at a loss; but if the reduction in freights wore secured by monna of an Imperial subsidy to the shipping rompanirs, that objection would be fully met.

At a meeting of tho Mairton Borough Council it was decided to proceed to Vaiso a loan of £6OOO for the purpose of reticulating Marton Junction with water.