SHIPS AND TRADE

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 73, 28 March 1933, Page 6

SHIPS AND TRADE

An important'" statement of Britain's position on the debts and trade ( " issues,- made by the Chancellor , of' the Exchequer at Leeds late in January, was t reported in detail, by mail, On ' yesterday's cable page, and on the same page "The Post's" American representative! paints in high colour American indignation at the speech.. Apparently Mr. Chamberlain's calm and cold statement of the United States's debt-collecting difficulties annoyed Americans who had expected to find instead a more plihnt debtor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer detailed the various ways in' which the American debt could be paid, ruled out loans, and "further shipment of gold," and added:—

Effective -means of payment would havo to be found, and they could only be found by increasing sales of foreign goods to America, or, what would come to the" same thing, by dimini3hing purchases from. America.

In short, America must huy -if she expects to sell and' to collect debts, and -this- raises the tariff' issue. On the tariff issue^.the new Democratic Administration in the United1 'Stales promises' to' be conciliatory, and seini-officially.it is said that a debtor who offers a good trade'agreement to the Americans may receive from them a good debt' agreement, but—

It was recently announced 'at tho White House thai the President had no' intention of asking Congress for authority to defer- payments, and he expects them to bo met when they arc due.

Comparing this White House statement (cabled on Friday) with Mr. Chamberlain's Leeds speech, it is plain enough that there is a gap to be bridged, yet it" was hardly to be expected that the Chancellor's cold analysis of the "position should have produced in the States the biggest "anti-British outburst" our representative has known in seven years. K "of course, "outbursts" come and "outbursts" go. A rearrangement of debts and trade is a. long-time job,.and a bit of momentary popular feeling may not register' much in the final analysis. Unfortunately, it seems to have registered, through a concurrence of events; in the shipping subsidy policy of Congress. The Leeds speech, and other. British statements in favour of protecting British shipping against subsidised rivals, seem to have struck the American mind just when Congress was dealing with the Estimates. In the ordinary course of events an economising Congress was expected to cut down-the Governmental money spent on; State aid to shipping. Our representative observes:—

■- It is certain that, responding to the demand for economy that was sweeping the country, the shipping subsidies ; would have been materially .reduced. ... ... : ..

Bui their friends inside and outside Congress made opportunistic use of the things that were being said in Britain. Congress was told that "Britain was seeking international] agreements to -the • detriment" of American "shipping," and Congress! opposition to this idea was so worked up that "the vote passed.-in full.*1 Thus is history' made.. The debate coritained a claim 'that mercantile marine ownership must be more evenly partitioned between the nations. But if there should be proportion and balance in shipowning, why not in trade? By a policy of tariff exclusion, the United States Government .has built up trade 'balances adverse to other countries, New Zealand included. In other' words, the Americans wish to cany their goods to us rather than qarry our goods to them. Yet they wish to. own the ships. Unbalance in ship ownership is immoral, but unbalanced trade—with someone else pay- | ing the piper—right and proper. '^