Taranaki Herald. THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1908. THE RAGE FOR TRADE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13671, 9 April 1908, Page 4

Taranaki Herald. THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1908. THE RAGE FOR TRADE.

1 o I A Board of Trride return recently issued,. gives some mterest- ' ing comparative figures in regard, to, the trade of last year, which reached record figures. These show thrit both in the aggregate of oversea . transactions and in ' the sum of increase over the pre-* vious year tjie tJnited Kingdom held by faf the highest position* among commercial nationa. The following table/ shows at a glance the imports and exports of th<? four leading, nations during last year, as well', a Ba B the increase over the year, the figures in each case concerning only articles, for home consumption and goods of domestic production. IMPORTS. ■

These tables afford much food for thought and speculation. Perhaps the outstanding feature is that the United Kingdom^ with a population Of about forty-foui millions, is iijble. to carry on a foreign trade enormously greatei than Germany, whose population . is sixty millions, or the United States, with their eighty millions of people. In the case of the United States it is, of course, obvious that with a huge atea of virgin country to be developed domestic requirements mjttst absorb, a larger proportion of manufacturing energy than in the UnitecJ •Kingdom. Take the single item of railway material, wliich British manufacturer^ supply more largely abroad than for home consumption, while, the development of their own country makes very great demands upon American, manufacturer**. A, better comparison may, however, be made between the United Kingdom and Germany, conditions being more upon, a par j -while both •< aspire to supremacy as manufacturing and trading couriifies. The Xtnited Kingdom secured a long start of Germany and for years was re-

garded as \h.e of the world, her policy of open ports attracting raw materia.l from countries which had them' to sell. The Germans, by a protective policy, have fostered the growth of industries, so<,successfully as to .raise some alarm in the United Kingdom and to shake the faith of many people, in the policy of free .trade. Heiic.e the tariff reform movement. .But the figures given above show that without any change of policy in the United Kingdom^ and in spite of redoubled efforts on the part o| the Germans to improve their position, British trade increased lapt year in a/ greater degree than Gierman. Especially is this' so in regard ±0 .exports. TK& British were supposed tp be losing trade to Germany, in our_ own colonies even as well as in other countries, yet British exports increased last yesir by fifty millions sterling while German exports increased only by twenty-five millions! Thivt d.bes not bear, out the contention that British manufacturers ar§ being beaten by their German rivals. Then it Was claimed that Britain's policy of free imports ppened her, ports to ' 'dumping, of otljer countries' surplus products, to the hurt. of the home jnantifactuxer,,.. while Germany's protective dutiefs guarded her . mantrfa<Mirers against this kind of competition. Yet 1 the figures given abbve show: tltat as an importing country Ger-^ many last year showed a, greater proportionate growth , than the. United Kingdom. In otbetf words, while tariff reformers claimed thai; the British policy of free imports was gradually ruining British export tratle and forcing her. to accept "c(umped J ■ goods to the injury of Jier domes* tic trade, these figures, prove th.at her export trade has grown mucn more than that of .,. Germany, whose, policy was held tffy as an, example to be followed, and that the Germans have, in spite of heavy Customs .du^QSj^fWjr^ased their imports more rapidly than the British. This upsets the theories of the tariff though at the same time, curiously enough; the figures are not such as the Free Trader expects, for they appear to show on th< face of them* that Great .Brhaii is losing ground, bee, a use lier exports, or what slia is 'paying? away, are growing at a' greatei rate than her, ijnport&y or «whal she is receiving. But there arc so many conflicting elements con> nected with the question of international trade that it does not do to draw hasty conclusions, ji may be that the exports, Jast year were swelled by jmiisually hestvj . investments of British capita] abroad, the capital- going out iv the shape of goods, not gold. It may be that JMtian iaatiufactur* ors "were able to buy raw material on particularly favourable terms last year, thus keeping the vahie of imports down, tt is, however, (go complicated a (Question to discuss further just nqw. We come back „to the' outstanding feature of the figures quoted, tl^at. BHtish trade last year was in tKe aggregate.' and in the increase over tin* previous year far greater than 1 hat of any rival coutntry.

1907.' 0v0t1906. U. Kingdom . ftfi3,932,000 Germany ... .422,707,000 IT. States ... 296,626,000 France 241,906,000 EXPORTS. U. Kingdom 426,205,000 Germany ... .337,722,000 6. States ...„ -394,881,000 France 221,691,000 £. 31,146,000 28,297,000 21,421,000 16,816,000' 50,630,000 25,070,000 25,565,000 11,013,006-