The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1909. TARIFFS IN THE EMPIRE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 614, 17 September 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1909. TARIFFS IN THE EMPIRE.

j' . As we anticipated—and, indeed, as yas discussion: of preferential trade by. the Congress of Chambers of Commerce has done little towards assist-, ing us to a solution of this most troublesome problem: , Of more practical value than the discussion is the ; amendment 1 which was added to the original motion the expediency of a general exchange of references. . This amendment recommended the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the question; as it affects each separate portion of the Empire and to embody their inquiries in a joint report. This plan wa;s suggested in these columns last week, and we are hopeful of excellent results if the commissioners will make up their minds to prosecute their investigations on the most extensive scale that is possible. No doubt the bias of the. Congress towards the new theory will have its due effect in shaping the commissioners' inquiries, sinco it will be much easier'to ( collect facts and figures for a definite polioy > than to collect thorn without any prepossession as to what they are to prove. We do not. intend to discuss the general qucsj3 tion here of to follow at all. closely the „ speeches of the delegates, which, we arc bound to say,,were very interesting and readable. Of more importance, it se6ms to us, is our duty of correcting what op--11 pears to us to be a mass of confusion and ){ orror in the minds of many of the delegates not'only as to-what is tho feeling l v of the overseas portions, of tho. Empire Jiut also as to what is the correct attij

tude to ba taken up by the self-governing colonies.

. We must first note' that it is a matter for regret that the New Zealand delegates who took part in the debate, Messrs. H. J. Maeiuneii and J. G. Haekness, should have taken up a stand which every thoughtful Imperialist in this country, whatever his fiscal views may be, will entirely repudiate. Me. Mabbiner's statement that "what suited England might not suit her dependencies'' is' perfectly true, but tho context showod that it was made by way of retort to the far more important truth, which was stated by a Manchester delegate, that "what might be good for Canada and Australia might not be good for the Mother Country." We shall explain in a moment why this is tho more important truth of the two. Mr. Marriner, moreover, seemed to.assert that the only alternative to an' alteration of Britain's fiscal policy is the "drifting apart" of the colonies. That is very unwholesome talk. Mr. Harkness, who actually claimed to be "voicing the wishes of tho people of New Zealand," "demanded" one policy for the Empire—"one flag, one throne, one Empire." He added that ''the present fiscal- polioy of Britain has broken down, and impedes her develop; ment and the development of the Empire's, trade." Mr. Harkness is of'course entitled to his opinion, but he is certainly overstepping the mark in claiming to voice the feeling of this country in "demanding" anything. Still less is he representing New Zealand opinion when he demands "one policy for the Empire," and bases his demand for preference, on some alleged hardship which this country endures at Britain's hands. Wo have ovor and ovor again, stated the determi- [ nation of this country to demand nothing I that British statesmen feel that they cannot give without injury to Britain. Our view is the view expressed, on behalf.of I Canada, by Mr. J. A. Maodonald, the editor of the Toronto Globe, Canada's greatest newspaper. He thus puts the Canadian point of view in a recent article in a leading British journal :

In one answer at lonst all informed, representative, , .and- self-respecting- Canadians would join.. It is this: No man has authority for. saying or for insinuating that Canada demands or rcquircs a tariff preference in ,tho British market to save oither her trade from destruction or her' loyalty from decay. ■When it is said or when it is implied, as is sometimes tho caso in tariff discussipns in Britain, that Canada has asked for preferential treatment; or that tho bonds of Empire may bo weakened if such preference is not granted, the Word may, bo given direct and flat denial. It simply is not true. If it wero true: it. would be to. the shame of Canada.

. . . If the people of the United Kingdom want a protective tariff they have.tho right to get it; but in getting it or in refusing it :they: must aofc for themselves, and not under tho mistaken impression that Canada's trade, or Canada's loyalty is at stako.

We have said that it is far more important to remember that what. is, good for the colonies may not be good for the -Motherland than to insist on the converse truth. 'The reason is surely obvious. The head and heart are more vital than the otliar members of the body; the sword arm is more precious than the feet. And, after all, the, colonies have thriven magnificently under present conditions. British statesmanship may be . trusted' with Britain's own; welfare, and when a fiscal change is ncccssary it will' assuredly he 'provided.". We arc glad to note that Sir i Albert ; Spicer;-went in' some detail into ,the! point, .which; . lasVweek,; namely, that "Britain already enables the'colonies to live as free,nations." Britain, said Sir Albert Spjcer, has already given substantial preference to the colonies. She has given ''preference in somo way on the question of defence, as was shown ■by the difference in; the cost per head to Britain and her dependencies.. Preference was given in connection with cilonial stocks and iJonds." It is 'difficult not, to feel indignant with the blustoring "demands" that are sometimes made of: the Mother' Country when it is remembered that Britain already gives the colonies something without:which all tho tariff preference possible would be utterly worthless—namely, such a security as 'has never been known in tho world since the. fall of the, Roman Empire. When "one;policy for the Empire" is demanded, Britain can quite justly retort: "Vory well, you shall have it. You refer to the United States. In the case of the United States the policy, follows the flag. Then you can have your unity of policy by knocking down the tariff walls wherever the Union Jack is'hoisted." Would our bellicose .Imperialists bo prepared to submit to that application of their doc-, trine ? We think not. The -Congress may be found ultimately to havo served I a useful purpose by leading 1 the overseas Imperialists into thinking of some of these insufficiently considered aspeots of the problem of Imperial reciprocity.