The Waikato times. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1934. AN EMPIRE BOYCOTT

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19353, 5 September 1934, Page 6

The Waikato times. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1934. AN EMPIRE BOYCOTT

The movement in Lancashire to impose a boycott against Australian produce in retaliation for the Commonwealth duties on co o goods appears, from all reports, to be spreading at an aluiming ta e. There is evidence of very definite and carefully-planned organisation among the factory employees of the “cotton country” to refrain from purchasing commodities of Australian origin, and the situation lias become so serious that the Australian Minister m London, Mr S. M. Bruce, is endeavouring to obtain official assistance in dispelling the menace which now confronts Australian tiade in Britain.

The most recent advices regarding the situation indicate that there is a possibility that the organisations in Lancashire will suspend the operation of the boycott pending a promised reconsideration by the Commonwealth Government of its tariffs on cotton manufactures. Representations have been made to the Lancashire grocers by leaders of the cotton trade urging upon them the undesirability of precipitate action. The grocers will now hold a special meeting to decide whether to suspend the boycott, but it is already clear that there has been a considerable loss of good feeling.

The boycott, however, is a double-edged weapon. Even if it succeeds in attaining its immediate objective it destroys something that is far more valuable than the direct gain which it may make. Thus if Australia should be forced to adjust her tariff in order to suit the demands of the Lancashire cotton hands, goodwill in Lancashire and in Australia is instantly destroyed and can be built up again only after long perseverance and application. A contributor to our correspondence columns seizes the opportunity of uttering a timely warning to New Zealand to avoid adopting any tactics which might be likely to involve the Dominion in a similar predicament.

The writer, however, destroys a good deal of the value of his warning by seeking to introduce with it some ill-disguised propaganda on behalf of the interests which he represents. The writer’s assertion that the reputation' of New Zealand, owing to her high exchange rate, stands no higher than that of Australia, would appear almost to be a case of the wish being father to the thought. Careful inquiries made by the New Zealand Government have shown that Britain recognises the emergencies which necessitated the action taken, and regards it as a matter of New Zealand domestic policy.

The allegation of “ stupid threats ” on the part of Mr David Jones and Mr Jessep—another instance of the sectional upbraiding which has been an unwelcome characteristic of our domestic economy during the last few years —pays scant regard to the sincerity of their motives or to the facts of the position. If Britain is unable to absorb the whole of our present export production, it is essential that markets must be sought elsewhere, if future expansion is to be safeguarded. Britain is now receiving fairly generous tariff treatment from New Zealand, and it would he ridiculous to suggest that the acceptance by Britain of the greater proportion of our exports carries with it the right to dictate the methods by which we may seek to dispose of the remainder.