Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18514, 27 March 1922, Page 6

WATPORT TENDERS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l must indignantly protest against Mr K. W. Dalton’s misconstruction oi the purport of my arguments us being ‘‘against trailing with the United Kingdom.” Since my deductions are directed towards the improvement of British commerce along common-sense lines, and since the present policy of entirely eliminating competition in favour of British interests is, in my opinion, operating against this desired improvement, I might reasonably claim to nave more British interests under consideration than one who so evidently sponsors the latter policy. I repeat what was said in my first letter, that 1 welcome British traded but 1 hold to the opinion I have formerly expressed, that the total disregard of the preferences prescribed by our tariff regulations is not only inimical to the development of stable British commerce but also unjust to our New Zealand business houses, dangerous to our commercial morale, and costly to the individual. It matters little whether Mr Dalton were directly interested in the Waipori tenders on tins particular visit to Dunedin or not. As the accredited representative of British trade he is necessarily interested, and, in the official position lie holds he cannot dissociate himself from the interests of British agents throughout the dominion. It is a matter of regret therefore that he should resent criticism from one of those to whom the operation of these interests means, verv often, so much in waste of public money, mis direction of publ.c sentiment, and. as instanced in the recent pipeline lenders, the subjection of local industries. Witti regard to Mr Dalton’s statement that during 1921 the United Kingdom purchased 86.4 per cent of our exports, may 1 point out that this has little bearing on my argument? It may also be said that during 1919 the figures were approximately the same and also that during the same period Great Britain purchased from the United States of America more than New Zealand could supply at these rates in 10 years’ lime. Tu tin' mutter of preferential tariffs in the United Kingdom (16 2-3 per cent, ro 50 per coot., as slated) I would lx; very pleased lo accept this statement were I given some indication as to its authenticity. I would ask Mr Dali on to show that these preferences <ycist and to apply the proof to any of our prineii-al exports from New Zealand—wool, frozen meat, butter, and cheese, etc. This information would bo gratefully accepted, but. failing ibis. I must, assume th.it the latest information available in Dunedin (Kelly’s Customs Tariffs of the World, 1920) holds good, and that what Mr Dalton claims as 16 2-3 per cent, preference is really 16 2-3 per cent, of the" ordinary duty. On a 10 per cent, dntv this amounts to 1 2-3 per cent.—a totally different matter. Moreover, the amount of such dutiable imports is so small as not to warrant any alteration from the genera! policy of free trade, and no duty is chargeable'on any of the principal exports man New Zealand. I agree with Mr Dalton that values cannor, be rightfully eliminated from consideration. In conclusion I would slate that most of Mr Dalton’s letter is beside the main point of my argument, which is the advisability of ignoring the existing preference of our tariffs when these tariffs are the results of the deliberate considerations of onr peoples’ representatives and embody already the full measure of onr preference for British goods.—l am, etc.. •fas. M. Abeiikethv. Dunedin, March 25*