FREE TRADE

Southland Times, Issue 21429, 25 June 1931, Page 8

FREE TRADE

INTERESTING DEBATE. INVERCARGILL SOCIETY. A very interesting debate was held last evening by the Invercargill Debating Society before a small but appreciative audience, the Subject being "That Britain should abandon her free trade policy in favour of Empire preference.” Mr John Tait acted as judge while Mr M. M. Macdonald was in the chair. Mr J. C. Price, in opening the debate for the affirmative, dealt with the historical aspect. About 85 years ago England advanced far beyond her neighbour in industry and commerce as the result of mechanizing her ideas and manufactures. Admittedly under Free Trade but particularly since the Great War the position bad changed’ absolutely. Foreign competition by reason of low wages and sweated labour had captured Britain’s export markets. The position now was that Britain had either to lower-her standard of living to those of her highly protected competitors or by a system of preferences protect her home market and those of her dominions. Until the Great War, England was regarded as the creditor of the world, but at the present time she was paying £224,000,900 per annum as an unemployment dole —a direct result of her free trade policy. England should abandon the policy of lending money to the rest of the world and devote her money, including her unemployment dole, to the fostering of Empire trade. In opening for the negative side of the debate, Mr A. J. Deaker also dealt with the historical aspect of free trade. After her treaty with France in . 1786, England prospered immensely, he said. Competition was the life of trade and was the surest way of ensuing that the customer got a fair deal. Increased trade meant a higher standard of living and an absence of unemployment. All these had been obtained with free trade and therefore it was in the interest of Britain to retain her fiscal policy. Mr A. T. Dorman, second speaker for the affirmative, said that the principle of free trade rested on a very insecure foundation. It was obviously foolish to permit foreign countries with very low standards of living to dump their goods on the market and thus force British workmen out of a job. It was quite possible to have Empire preference and yet keep a free breakfast table. Empire preference would become the very lifeblood of the British Empire. Countries like Russia and Japrn had no purchasing power and the vast amount of goods dumped in England was actually worth very little. It was simply destroying the home market. Britain had set an example to the world in the standard of living. That standard had to be maintained and that could best be accomplished by a system of protective tarriffs.

Mr T. R. Pryde, the second speaker for the negative, dealt with the principles of free trade. Competition was the life of industry, he said, and resulted in greater production with benefit to the home consumer and to foreign trade. Free trade encouraged the efficient use of capital and encouraged invention and progress. Empire preference on the other hand, curtailed home industry. Each country had its own special industry and it was only by giving these industries freedom that the best results could be obtained. Preference would mean everlasting strife and friction. It was a case of ■the survival of the fittest and it was best for each country to take its chance. The debate was then thrown open to the meeting when there were several speakers, all of whom supported the affirmative side of the question. The leaders, Mr Deaker and Mr Price, replied and the motion was put to the audience who gave a definite decision in favour of Empire preference.