BRITAIN’S TRADE

Hokitika Guardian, 25 May 1929, Page 8

BRITAIN’S TRADE

‘ ‘ A UCK LAN D STAR ’ ’ COMM ENT. Having heard more than enough about- the alleged industrial and commercial decadence o'! Britain, a writer : n the “Auckland Star,” amused himself by collecting a little evidence on the other side of the ease and rpiotes a few of the items. -The President ol the Board of Trade has just stated that in 1928 British exports had increased by 4} per cent, as compared with 1924, that manufactured exports had increased by 7f pel* cent, and manufacturing production by 9:1 l ,ur cent. As to sea-borne trade, the Suez Gann! Company’s annual return shows that of 32,009,000 tons of shipping that passed through the Canal last vearj more than 18.000,000 tons were British, while Germany and Holland our nearest rivals, could claim only 1.000,000 tons each. During the month of April the advances made bv the London Clearing Banks totalled over C 1,000,000,000 for the first time in tlieir history. Recently a statement issued from Washington by the AmoriDepartment of Commerce showed that while there has been a falling-off in American investments abroad, Britain r ‘ is maintaining a decided in•rease” in foreign underwriting. Kindly, ns proof that British initiative is not dead, and that British producers are able and willing to start new enterprises at Home when favourable opportunities offer, a reference may be -mule to the' Board of Trade return which shows that since Safeguarding was introduced 22 silk factories, 11 motor car factories, and 5 motor tyre factories have been built in Britain. Bather a difficult record, on the whole, for the pessimists to explain away. THE SUGAR CRISIS. Among the many industrial problems •tow under discussion at Geneva, the l eague of Nations, through its. Econ •>mie Department, is engaged in investigating what is rather gradiloqiiently L-ruled the World’s Sugar Crisis, fliere is no doubt that the sugar industry throughout the world is exceptionally depressed just now—the cane growers’ by the strenuous competition of licet, and the Cmltihental sugar refiners by the extension: of tlieir indtis try im Britain. But the remedy suggested—“ to stimulate the consumption ,f swar strikes one as rather hum oimrtis. Between 1920 and 1923 Britain’s imports of refined sugar fell ii wei'dit from 027,000 tons to 215,000 nw f in value from £10,000,000 t--03.500,000. In those three years the sales oF Holland to Britain fell off by over £2,000.000. and -the sales of Czechoslovakia to Britain declined h u 3 500,000. Even the importation ol Canadian sugar (beet and maple) fol from £1,000,000 to £113,000 a year. But the figures 1 for unrefined sugar tel a different tale. For Britain’s totn imports of raw sugar from foreign countries increased from £6,500,000 t( €14,000,000 during ’1926-28, testifying to the rapid growth of the beet indus try abroad, while' Britain’s imports i*om the Empire rose from about €8 ON).000 ’to £9.000,000. The conclusion drawn by the Sugar Federation of the British Empire is the obvious one that Britain ought to do everything in her power to encourage both beet growing and cane growing throughout the Dominions. The Fed eration has just issued an interestin'? pamphlet on “Britain’s Sflgar Supply,” in which Sir B. Morgan and he colleagues show that there are immense possibilities for cane growing stil unexploited in Australia and Biitisi Guiana, and to some extent also in Mauritius, the West Indies, and South Africa, and they urge that more assistance should he given by Imperial pro Icronccs to the cultivation ol sugar within the Empire.