The Kenna Duties: German Rivalry.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19240, 29 November 1930, Page 8

The Kenna Duties: German Rivalry.

A Weekly Review.

By

Bystander.

No one need be surprised to learn that* the Conservatives at Home are doing their best to exploit the failure of the Imperial Conference at the expense of the Labour Government. Mr Neville Chamberlain, at a public meeting in the city last week, referred in indignant terms to “the melancholy conclusion” of a gathering that “had offered the greatest opportunity of the generation.” He regards it as “a lasting shame” to the Labour Party that it has failed to appreciate and reciprocate the oft'ers of the Dominions. At the same time, in Parliament, Conservative “hecklers” have been endeavouring to induce or persuade or provoke Mr Snowden to say precisely what he means to do about existing preferences and the safeguarding duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be anxious to emulate his greatest predecessor in the Gladstonian elusiveness and evasiveness of his replies. The “Morning Post” said that Mr Snowden “selected the most shifty and the most obscure language at his command,” but that his obvious intention is “to sweep away the rest of the safeguarding duties and to reduce and damage the M’Kenna duties as far as he can.” The “Daily Telegraph” agrees that Mr Snowden’s remarks can only be interpreted as indicating that the policy of the Government “consists of successive removals of all the existing safeguards.” So that, whatever may happen to existing preferences after the expiry of the three years for which Mr Snowden has promised to maintain them, it looks as if, despite the moral effect of the Imperial Conference and the impetus that the colonial delegates have given to Tariff Reform at Home, the safeguarding system is doomed. A Sheltered Industry. As to the fate of one hitherto sheltered industry, from which protection is now to be withdrawn, a great deal has already been said and written. The Dye Stuffs Act contained a provision that it should continue in force for “a period of ten years and no longer,” and last week the President of the Board of Trade announced to the House of Commons that “as the object of the Act had been obtained” it would now be allowed to lapse. Naturally, this decision has evoked a storm of protest from everybody at Home who believe in anything but pure and undiluted Free Trade. Before the Act was passed, in 1920, the Government of the day stated officially that “for National Security it is essential that synthetic colour-making factories should be in existence and be maintained in operation, with their staffs of chemists and other experts, in this country.” The reference to “National Security,” of course, bears not only on the textile trades, but also on the close connection between coal-tar dyes and high explosives. Before the war, though an Englishman had led the way in this industry, the German Dye Trust held a world monopoly of these products, and it was only the bitter experience of the war that forced Britain to deviate here this far from the traditions of Cobdenism. The Act prohibited the importation of foreign “synthetic organic dyestuffs” except under special license. Consequently Britain’s import of dyestuffs fell from 41,000,0001 b in 1913 to 4,700,0001 b in 1928; and during the same period Britain’s production of synthetifc dyestuffs rose from 9,000,0001 bto 51,000,0001 b, to the great advantage and profit of the whole nation. Now Mr Snowden and Mr Graham mean to let the Act lapse, and at once the German Dye Trust, with £40,000,000 capital, and the American Trust, which already controls nearly 25 per cent of the world’s trade, will be ready to “dump” again and swamp the British market once more. As the “Daily Telegraph” mournfully puts it, “Britain will soon be back in the deplorable position of 1914.” But what will Mr Snowden care so long as he has once more illustrated the sacred principles of Free Trade? The German Worker. One of the many difficulties which British production has to face is the competition of foreign wage-earners, who work longer hours for less pay. The International Labour Conference is to struggle with the problem of an international working-day at Geneva next June, and Mr Shin well, now in charge of the Mines Department, is making a meritorious attempt to arrange an agreement about working hours with the Germans. But the Germans have eccentric ideas about the length of a working day. In a recent contribution to the “English Review,” it is stated that the Germans Jjave no conception of an eight hours day as usually understood. For they are permitted by law to make up all time that they have lost through illness, breakdown of machinery, or delay in delivery of raw material. In fact, a maximum of 600 hours a year overtime is allowed, and often worked, in Germany. Moreover, “there is no law in Germany restricting in the slightest degree the employment of children]’ in agricultural or domestic duties. How is it possible to arrange a definite and uniform schedule of hours for bodies of wage-earners who differ so completely as the British and the German workers, in all their habits and traditions? Lost Colonies. In any case, the Germans, in their present frame of mind, are not likely to take kindly to any proposal for amicable adjustments with Britain. For the victory of the Hitlerites, or Natipnal Socialists, at the polls has let loose a flood of Anglophobia again, and the German Press is now protesting, with a great wealth of vituperative epithets, at “the organised robbery of German Colonies by Britain.” Even Dr Schnee, who was the last Governor of German East Africa, declares that Britain is now engaged in “exploiting” this vast territory and annexing it to her Empire. It should be understood that, in terms of the Mandate, Tanganyika, as the territory is now called, is compelled to maintain the “open door” on an international scale. That is to say, anybody, quite irrespective of race or nationality, may acquire land or engage in trade or secure concessions there, and-absolute equality for all in commercial conditions prevails. It is quite easy to understand the resentment felt by the Germans at the loss of their colonies. But they are not likely to secure redress or to make a favourable impression upon the League of Nations by indulging in crude misrepresentations and fictions of this sort. “Wild Cat” Banking. During the era of financial chaos that followed the American Civil War, banks were started all over the country on a very inadequate basis of capita!, and run on lines entirely inconsistent with sound financial traditions. The inevitable result came in a plentiful crop of failures, and tremendous losses to the confiding depositors and shareholders. Since then, the Americans, profiting by their misfortunes, have made systematic* attempts to obviate such disasters in the future, and their Federal Reserve system is highly praised by financial experts. But in spite of all this, the collapse of the speculative “boom” a few months ago has been followed by a widespread financial panic, and, up to November 22, 119 banking institutions had suspended operations and closed their doors at least for the time. One of the many morals to be drawn from these disasters is the grave danger involved in rash extension of credit and the participation of banks in industrial and commercial undertakings. But it may also serve to remind us that banking employs a very delicate mechanism, which might easily collapse in ruin if entrusted to careless or inexperienced hands.