TRADE POLICY AFTER THE WAR.

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2745, 14 April 1916, Page 6

TRADE POLICY AFTER THE WAR.

Sir, —You have done me the honour, in your issue of Monday's date, to refer to some remarks of mine about trade policy after the war. You say (or imply), truly enough, that I have no authority to' speak on that subject. So far as the questions- involved .are economic, no doubt the opinion of one ■who has made a special study of economics would have more weight than that of an ordinary citizen; but, 60 far as they are moral—and this was the point on which I laid most emphasis,_ because our moral standpoint affects vitally our education 6ystem and methods—so far as the questions involved are moral, I would refer you to a saying of Gladstone's, that politics, religion, and morality are' every man's business, that is, every man has,, and is entitled to have, his own opinion about them, and in respect of them there is no external authority which can or should attempt to dictate to him. I do not take it that national morality differs in.. its fundamentals from individual morality, honesty, loyalty to right, regard for tho rights of others, nations, or individuals, are the' Same in'both cases; in fact, the social or national restraint upon conduct is -with some individuals stronger than that of their own will. National morality differs chiefly from individual morality.- in that it is mora complex, both in regard to its expression and what I might call its machinery. "May I be allowed to say that I have an equal horror, with you of the crimes that Germany, dominated by the military caste of Prussia, has committed against humanity, and as strong a. conviction as you that wa must fight on and fight on until we'have made such a crime, as far .as we can, impossible in the future; but in regard to the position after the war,_ I would draw as clearly.as possible a distinction between Germany's illegitimate attempts to filch trade from other na r tions (enabling her to prepare for war against their liberty), and the carrying on of a- perfectly legitimate trade. To boycott German trade and crush 'it completely (if that be possible) _ is' neither more or less than Prnssiamsin in the region of commerce. The whole question (even the boundary line .between the two kinds of trade I have meutioned) is fraught with difficulties. We started out to oppose Prassianism in matters of international politics— which really involved the whole fabric of nationar liberty and human civilisation. All 1 ask is that we should pause before committing ourselves to wagmga, perpetual trade war against our pre-sent-foes, and so nursing bate for ever. It is idle to say it is not hate to wage such a war. Are you, sir, or is any civilised person, prepared to reply in the aftirmativo to the question I put in my address—"Shall we Keep Hate for Ever?" , . .'.'.,' I have nothing to complain of m tho courteous fairness of your remarks,except that to some extent.they were based upon reports (unavoidably, no doubt) so compressed that they failed to oivo- in several respects the nieanintended to convey—l am, etc., g G. HOGBEN. Khandallah, April 12, 1916.