Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, AUG. 4, 1903. Preferential Treatment.

Manawatu Herald, 4 August 1903, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, AUG. 4, 1903. Preferential Treatment.

The preferential tariff question is a large one, and at the present time is exercising the minds of politicians and other public men both of the Old Country and the Colonies. It is not, however, only leading public men who are duly considering the pros and cons of the subject, for the workers are wondering whether many of the principal commodities used by them are likely to be affected as regards price, for if they are to become dearer it would be plain to see that decided objections would quickly be voiced by those interested. Evidently Mr Chamberlain does not intend to allow any wrong impressions to gain too much ground before explanations are forthcoming. Writing to “A Working Man” on June 3rd he says:—“ It will be impossible to secure preferential treatment with the colonies without some duty on com as well as on other articles of food, because these are the chief articles of colonial produce. Whether this will raise the cost of living is a matter of opinion, and there is no doubt that in many cases a duty of this kind is paid by the exporter, and it really depends on the extent of competition among the exporting countries. For instance, it is, I think, established that the shilling duty recently imposed was met by a reduction of price and of freights in the United States of America, and that the tax did not therefore

fall in any way on the consumer here. But even if the price of food is raised, the rate of wages will certainly be raised in greater proportion. This has been the case both in the United States and in Germany. There is another side of the question which also requires discussion. At present we go into negotiations with foreign countries empty-handed. We have nothing to give, and we have to ‘take what they are good enough to leave for us. If we were able to bargain on equal terms, I believe that the duties now imposed on our produce would be generally reduced. There would be a competition among foreign nations for our market which would bring us nearer to real free trade than we have ever been. You are told by the opponents of all change that such a reform as I contemplate would involve this country in ruin, would bring starvation to the homes of theaworking people, and destroy our export trade. If these predictions have any foundation, how are we to account for the fact that the increase of exports, wages and general prosperity during the last twenty years in the United States and Germany has been greater than in the United Kingdom, which is the only civilised country in the world to enjoy the blessings of unrestricted free import ? "