Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1929 FREE TRADE WITHIN THE EMPIRE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 17 July 1929, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1929 FREE TRADE WITHIN THE EMPIRE

IT is satisfactory to note that the question of free trade within the Empire is considered sufficiently practicable to be discussed, in the daily Press of London. The cabled precis of an article in the "Morning Tost," a journal noted forks conservative and imperial outlook, shows that at the present moment the difficulties in the way of imperial fiscal union loom larger in the mind of the London journal than do the stupendous advantages which would result, from it. Those difficulties are fully understood by Lord Melchett, who has said that any comprehensive fiscal union into which the self-governing States of the Empire might enter, would necessarily have to provide for the preservation of the Dominions' infant manufacturing industi ies, and for the guarantee of cheap supplies of food and cheap raw materials for Great Britain. That is to .say, whatever measure of free trade within the

Empire may be adopted, the free and natural growth of the Dominions' manu-

facturing industries must not be cramped or hindered, while the Dominions on their part will have to guarantee a continuous and cheap supply of food to Great Britain. Wo do not profess to know of a formula which, while providing these requirements, will he satisfactory to the people of the Dominions and of Great Britain. But we believe that such a formula could be propounded by the industrialists, financiers, and statesmen of the Empire, in conference assembled. Lord Molchett has recently said :

It will be tho task of those who have the arranging of this Empire merger to see that neither capital nor employment suffers. Practical men can work out a practical scheme by arrangement of quotas and compensation.

They ought to be able, therefore, to convince the average, unprejudiced citizen of the Empire that the proposed innovation is conceived in his interest, and not for the purpose of uprooting existing fiscal systems because of mere love of change. The "Morning Post," while not seeking to discourage Lord Melchett and Lord Beaverbrook in their crusade for free trade within the Empire, suggests that "they will find difficulty in persuading the Dominions entirely to sweep away in our—(Britain's) —favour tariffs on which they depend for both revenue and protection for young industries." We venture the opinion, that if the Dominions are convinced that their "young industries" are conserved, they will not find insuperable difficulty in providing other means of revenue than that resulting from import duties imposed on Empire products. The London journal is primarily concerned with tho preservation of the existing system of preferential duties, on which it very rightly places a high value, and says aptly: What we hoped for was ... a continuous widening of preferential trade ... we are in peril of losing something of such value that other nations would give their eyes to possess it. Wo enjoy a favoured position in the most hopeful and expansive markets of tho world. What the advantage" will be worth when these vast territories are more closely populated and fully developed goes beyond our arithmetic.

Great indeed as is the value of her preferential trade to Britain, the very fact that the "Morning Post" is fearful that Parliament may cancel the existing preferences shows clearly on what an uncertain basis tho preferential system stands. It is quite unsatisfactory that the expansion or contraction of inter-Empire trade should depend on party politics. Tho plan proposed by Lords Beaverbrook and Melchett would lift this question completely out of the sphere of party politics, and would make it a matter of treaty and agreement between the States—the United States—of the Empire. At present the principle of in-ter-Empire preference, beneficial as it is, is subject, to emendation or even to cancellation by any short-sighted Government which is temporarily presiding over the destiny of the individual State in which it operates. The proposed imperial fiscal union would actually preserve thai principle of preference perpetually, and at the same time would broaden and enhance its scope. One more point: The Cobdenites' conception of universal free trade is almost universally rejected. The fiscal union of the United States of America and the prospective fiscal union of the proposed United States of Europe will probably kill it, since Britain—the sole free trade country in a world of protection —could not long exist as a flourishing economic integer. The ideal of the British disciples of Cobden would then have vanished. But they still might preserve such portion of the free trade principle us would be active within the Empire, which, while trading freely within itself, would protect itself against the industrial rivalry of foreign economic complexes.