AMERICAN TRADE COMPETITION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 9336, 28 December 1901, Page 4

AMERICAN TRADE COMPETITION.

LONDON, Nov. 28.

Sixteen reporters and six British business men gathered this, afternoon m response to the London Chamber of Commerce's general invitation to hear Mr Seymour Bell, the commercial agent of Great Britain 'in the United States, expound his theories on American trade competition. He said that all America wanted from abroad was daily getting smaller, but that Great Britain was being cut out of even, this small portion ofl the market by France and Germany. Mr Bell attributed this to Great Britain's backwardness m using labor saving and automatic machinery. Hd declared the working plasses of Great Britain must be educated up to them and be- convinced that their use was essential before' Great Britain could compete with America. Mr Bell also said there was no doubt that reciprocity m the United States would result m the removal or reduction of many of the duties now enforced, but it would be m articles m which the United States was quite safe from foreign competition. Mr Bell said there was a growing need for tea m the United States. The fact [disclosed that the Ceylon tea merchants ■hafc entered into a pooling arrangement for the purpose ofl promoting the sale of their brands m the United States. The 1 commercial agent denied the statement that American cement was inferior to Portland cement. One of the merchants present declared that American trade was completely ousting British trade from Central and South America. Discussing what became of old men m America, Mr Bel] said that a man over 46 years of age had hard work to get any position there and that this was one of the most serious factors m the\ future American business life. Scotch whisky, it was also said, is now being made m New York and exported m large quantities to South America. Mr Bell reassured Ids hearers that there was no prejudice against British goods, although they could not expect them to be bought when, as is the case with agricultural machiuery, the American article was lighter, more durable and cheaper. Nor could the colonies be blamed for patronising America m preference to Gresat Britain m this branch ofl machinery. He praised the specialisation adopted by American manufacturers, and concluded with declaring that while nothing which could not bo remedied existed to prevent Great Britain from holding her own, her manufacturers must get more modern machinery and must compel their employes to use it.