The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, AUGUST 1,1932. MR. BALDWIN’S BOMBSHELL.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 179, 1 August 1932, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, AUGUST 1,1932. MR. BALDWIN’S BOMBSHELL.

jyjß. BALDWIN’S statement to the Ottawa Conference is just the answer which Mr. Bruce and Mr. Coates had courted. They had placed themselves in exactly the same position as that occupied by the Dominions’ representatives at other Imperial Conferences; they had not chosen fresh ground except that Mr. Coates had advanced the quota idea, but on the vital question of the concessions which they could make they said not one word. Mr. Bruce’s speech was too forthright to be tactful. It was an attempt to play the strong man, which in such circumstances is a role not far removed from that of the bully. Mr. Bennett, of Canada, adopted that tactic at the last Imperial Conference held in London and that, as much as anything, was the cause of Mr. J. H. Thomas’ very plain speaking. The pointedness in the present case of Mr. Baldwin’s statement is there just as plainly despite it being couched in very polite terms. Put briefly, the argument advanced by Mr. Baldwin is: We have no intention of dealing with the Dominions in a haggling spirits over the price of nails and the duty on earpets; let us all look at the subject in a large way. But the United Kingdom has done something which has advantaged the Dominions very much indeed. It has passed the Import Duties Act and the Horticultural Products Act and these statutes have conferred new benefits upon the Dominions as compared with non-Empire competitors. Further, more than 90 per cent, of the goods sent by the Dominions are admitted to Britain duty free; that is in competition with the products of the producers of the United Kingdom. Despite this, the Dominions are buying more from foreign sources than they are buying from the United Kingdom, whereas the United Kingdom is buying more than she previously did from Empire sources. The balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the principal self-governing Dominions is always in favour of the Dominions and now you come and ask the United Kingdom for more selling advantages.” Mr. Baldwin summarises his figures thus: Firstly, there is a visible trade balance in favour of the Dominions of nearly one hundred millions sterling; secondly, the Dominions’ imports from foreign countries amount to nearly £350,000,000.

Mr. Bruce has put too much stress on the value of the preference accorded to the United Kingdom and this has called forth the time-honoured rejoinder, which in Mr. Baldwin’s statement is expressed in the following way: ‘‘lt is necessary to remember that the percentage of duty is of great importance in assessing the value of preference. If it is to give assistance, preference must not be so high as to seriously restrict importation. The British delegation urges upon the Dominions that the rate of duty should be so graduated as to give British products a reasonable chance of competing on even terms; also that duties against British products for protective purposes should be fixed no higher than is necessary to give a fair chance to reasonably efficient Dominion industry.” This but echoes at greater length what Sir Edward Grey observed as far back as the year 1904. “I am more interested,” he stated, “in the duties which the colonies impose on British goods than in those which they impose on foreign goods.” These two statements made twentyeight years apart, when placed together, reveal the poverty of the advocacy of the Dominions at Ottawa. The rejoinder to-day is the rejoinder of three decades ago. Surely it is about time that a different approach is made to the subject of Inter-Empire trade.

“We have stated frankly and fully to the Dominions the articles on which we desire to secure further advantages in the Dominion markets. We will welcome equally a full statement of the corresponding advantages which the Dominions seek in British markets.” This is, perhaps, the hardest knock of all for the Dominions’ delegates, for it advertises to the world that despite the speeches already made, the Conference has not yet got down to business.

Mr. Baldwin’s statement is, however, not devoid of those qualities which go by the name of special pleading, and may, with equal justification, be termed “guile.” Mr. Baldwin poses as a simple-minded countryman. But it is always well to watch closely a simple-minded countryman. In his statement Mr. Baldwin makes special reference to the import and export position of Australia and New Zealand, but fails to mention that the past year has been one of crisis for the finances of both countries and that the restriction of imports was a compulsory action which had really nothing to do with the general tariff policy of cither Australia or New Zealand. Further, Mr. Baldwin fails to mention that Australia and New Zealand must, on balance, always ship more to the United Kingdom than she imports therefrom because Australia has to pay £30,000,000 in interest and New Zealand has to pay £10,000,000 for the same purpose in each year. Were New Zealand to balance her trade with the United Kingdom to a nicety then she would export £10,000,000 each year more than she imported from the Homeland. It is quite true, as Mr. Baldwin points out, that the Dominions have been much benefited by the preferential treatment accorded Dominions’ securities in the English financial market, but he should be reminded that it is this very preference which unbalances trade between the Dominions and the United Kingdom. Mr. Baldwin’s statement also makes it quite clear that the British Government is conscious of the Dominions’ vulnerable position, in that to use the exact words of the statement: “Britain takes a very large proportion of Dominion exports, FOR MANY OF WHICH THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO OTHER AVAILABLE WORLD OUTLET.”

To have brought the Dominions’ ease right up against such a presentation of facts, which are indeed eloquent, can hardly be described as good advocacy. Up to now the Dominions’ case, and particularly that of Australia and New Zealand has been tackled from the wrong angle. The only man who seems to have gained anything from past experience is Mr. Bennett, of Canada, and he seemingly only under the urge of political necessity.