TRADE TREATY

Hokitika Guardian, 29 January 1930, Page 2

TRADE TREATY

/ ARGENTINE AND BRITAIN. ' . MEAT, GRAIN, BUTTER. WELLINGTON, January 24. A Buenos Ayres cablegram published in New Zealand papers in November contained an announcement by the Argentine Government that the British government, in return for Argentine tariff concessions on Artificial silk, had undertaken, that “any protective duties or restrictions which may in tuture he levied by Great Britain on foodstuffs originating in countries outside the British Empire will not be levied against Argentine meats and grains. The agitation in Great Britain for Free- Trade within the British Empire and imposition of duties against non-British products has been a source of great alarm among exporters in the Argentine.”

This cablegram attracted little notice in New Zealand, but the announcement caused a good deal of comment ij. the United Kingdom—comment that was not cabled. The announcement means that if the United Kingdorri , decided to levy any form of duty or restriction against for-eign-produeed meat or grain, in oidet to encourage meat or grain produced in the Dominions or in the United Kingdom itself, then the United Kingdom is hound—so far as the present MacDonald Labour Government has power to bind it—to exempt Argentine meat and grain from: such duty or restriction. : In other words, Argentine would stand in with the Empire units if any form of Empire preference or Empire meat or grain, by way of duty or restriction, were to lie adopted.

AN ADDENDUM ABOUT BUTTER. The cablegram made it appear that only meat and grain are concerned. There was nothing in the cablegram to suggest that dairy produce, in which Argentina competes with New Zealand, comes 'into the issue. But “La Epoch,” an, Argentine semi-official journal, as quoted by “The_ Times,” tells the above cabled story with the following addition : “In the course- of the interviews leading to this gratifying solution Dr. Irigoyen (President of Argentina) suggested that the British Ambassador should ask his Government to extend its favourable declaration in regard to the Argentine productss specified so as to include dairy products and fruit also. The Ambassador promised to submit this suggestion.” *> “La Epoca” also confirms the cabled .statement that Argentina's quid pro quo is a 5Q per cent, reduction of duty ion artificial silk products “takhm account that artificial silk has not the same value as the natural article.”

AIR AAIERY AVOULD FIGHT. In reply to questions in the House of Commons bv Air Percy. Hurd and Sir NeAvton Moore Avho suggested that the British GoA'ernment should consult with the Dominions before the Angloargentine agreement is ratified, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board ox Trade, Air AV. R. Smith, said: “The terms and exact scope of the declaration are still under consideration. Such a declaration would express the policy of his Majesty’s Government and VA'ould involve rto formal agreement; no question of consultation. Avith the Dominions for ratification therefore arises.”

Speaking at a Conservative meeting, Air Amery, avlio Avas for some years Secretary to the Dominions in the last Cbnservath'e Government, said that kind of policy ought to lie fought tooth and nail by those Avho cared about Empire trade. The Dominions did far larger trade Avith Britain than Argentina did. Yet Britain Avas to be precluded from doing anyhing that would put the Dominions in a more favourable position than Argentina.

SHACKLES ON TARIFF ACTION. c3w’- s Air Percy Hurd Avrote to “The Times” protesting on behalf of British and Dominion farmers. He Avrote: ••They shackle us Avith the obligation not to impose a tariff or ‘any restriction of any kind other than a necessary in the interests of public health’ upon the food export of the keenest foreign competitor both of Great Britain and Dominions.” Air L. AV. ATatters, taking the other side, Avrote: “In Avhat Avay does Air Hurd suggest that a bargain, involving on the part of Argentina a 50 per cent, reduction in certain duties, could have been struck if no such reciprocal declaration had been made? With Avhat could Ave negotiate it not Avith an assurance that a very old policy, adhered by all Parties, Avould still lie maintained ?” None of the disputants seems to have touched the point as to Avhat the assurance is actually Avorth, and Avhether it binds any future British Governmnt.