DISCRIMINATION POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21545, 18 January 1932, Page 5

DISCRIMINATION POLICY

A WARNING TO FRANCE RETALIATION MAY BE NECESSARY. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 7. In asking the House of Commons to approve the first of two lists of emergency duties imposed upon certain classes of manufactured goods, Mr Runciman (President of the Board of Trade) issued a warning which was intended to be heard by the French Government. There had been a suggestion by the Opposition that this policy was contributing something to international friction, he said. He saw no sign of it. The discriminatory duty against . exports from this country into France had been attributed by some members to the Government’s policy regarding abnormal importations, but the French decree was published on November 14, and, he was informed, had received the official sanction before that date, whereas the earliest date on which the Government in this country announced its policy was November 16. The Government were naturally amazed to find that under the French decree we -were not receiving most-fav-oured-nation treatment, for, although there was no most-favoured-nation clause in existing treaties, we had throughout no less than two generations received such treatment. The attention of the French Government had been drawn to the matter. The coal exporters of this country had been most severely hit, and had made, representations to France. But there was no connection whatever between this decree and the present orders, or the legislation which preceded them. Nor was anything the Government had done directed against any country or any trade; they had maintained the utmost impartiality. Mr Runciman also gave figures showing that the Germans had no grounds of complaint against-ms for discriminatory action. He wished to make it clear that the orders made under this Act had been designed for the sole • purpose of avoiding the prejudice to United Kingdom industries which resulted from abnormal importations of particular goods, and in deciding what goods should be made subject of an order they had taken no account of the particular country from which those goods were imported. MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT.

“ The action of the French Government, The Times points out in a leading aritcle, “ reverses a practice which has continued ever since 1882, not indeed under the treaty of that date which regulates the commercial relations between the two countries, but under a law promulgated unilaterally by the French Chamber the day before the treaty was signed. That law gave most-favoured-nation treatment to British goods, other than colonial produce, and during the 50 years since its passage successive French Governments have recognised its moral obligations by extending to British goods concessions made from time to time to goods of ther nations.

“What possible reason, it will be asked, can there be in necessity or in equity for reversing this practice? The trade balance of France has until recently been eminently satisfactory, and, though less favourable symptoms are now manifesting themselves which might lead the French Government to seek to check imports by tariffs or, as they have actually done, to lower the permitted quota of certain classes of imports, the justification—if justification there be—is of an impartial restriction of imports from all countries and not of discriminatory restrictions. Again, if the reason is that the depreciation of sterling gives an undue advantage to British imports, it must be remembered that no special action against French imports was taken by tliis country even when the franc depreciated by over 90 per cent, of its value. It is worth while adding that this action lias been taken, it is understood, under powers to impose special charges taken before this country abandoned the gold standard. For nil these reasons Mr Runciman was fully justified in asserting that action of this kind could not be ignored, and must bo met by methods less futile than mere protests.”