Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4439, 11 June 1875, Page 2

The Wellington Chamber of Commerce has politely declined to be represented at a conference of delegates from the various chambers of commerce in the Australasian colonies, as suggested by the Brisbane Chamber. A similar reply to the invitation was transmitted from the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce. We agree with the Wellington Chamber that no practical good could possibly result from such a conference. It could hardly be said to possess a representative character, and could not possibly be held to pledge the respective communities in which the delegates happened to reside. Then again, the questions to be considered lie in the direct track of practical statesmanship. "A Customs union, a uniform ' "tariff, and intercolonial free trade" were in the programme ; but as these ' involve considerations of public policy which gentlemen engaged in ordinary ; business avocations do no,t study very f minutely, the resolutions which such a i conference would arrive at would be crude in the extreme. The members of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce were not ignorant of this, several of them [ having acquaintance with the responsi- ; bilities of public life ; hence their declin- ' ing the invitation from Brisbane. [ Nor can we wonder at this refusal on other grounds. When one considers the ! abortive proceedings of intercolonial conferences, at which the various Executive Governments were represented, no one . with a grain of common sense could sup- > pose that delegates from chambers of . commerce could do better. For reasons of public policy, however, we object to . New Zealand joining in any compact [ which would have the effect of pledging it to any fiscal policy, in the interest of any other country. Because it is absurd , to suppose that Victoria, for example, would suggest a Customs union and colonial reciprocity, if its statesmen did : not think they would gain an advantage by reason of its large accumulated capital, facilities for trade, and limitation of competition to the weaker and less opulent colonies. What we want is to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market; and if New Zealand were mad enough to become a member of a Customs league with the colonies on the Australian mainland, it would soon find out that this 1 principle of trade would be reversed. Mr. Hunter put it pithily and well, when he said that " stripped of all its artificial " arguments the question was simply " one of protection and free trade." He likewise disposed of Mr. Pearce's sophistries in a very few words. What did Mr. Pearce, a merchant and large importer, mean by advocating *' intercolonial free trade" on the ground that it was " protecting them- " selves against foreign trade, and as such " was deserving the attention of the "Chamber?" This doctrine strikes at the root of all commercial transactions. It would, consistently followed out, shut up Wellington to its own local trade, because Wanganui, Napier, and Blenheim settlers are as much "foreigners" as the inhabitants of the British isles. Would Mr. Pearce, as a merchant, refuse to execute a " foreign" order 1 Would he decline to buy and sell, or transact any kind of business with "a foreigner," lest peradventure the foreigner might make a profit on the transaction, although his own gain would be certain ? We think not. Then what is the meaning of the Australasian group of colonies "protect- " ing themselves against foreign trade V The true policy of New Zealand is to encourage and extend its foreign trade, by removing imposts on shipping and increasing the facilities for the transit of merchandise. That done, the domestic trade might be safely left to take care of itself. Our merchants would not need any protection against outside competition; but if a " foreigner," after paying our Customs duties, is able to undersell the colonial importer, by all means let the consumer have the advantage. Ho will not let his money rust. His savings will go into use to open some other channel of trade. Our space does not admit of considering Mr. Pearce's argument in favor of subsidising a steamer between New Zealand and Brisbane. We have simply to say, that we think his position untenable. If Queensland were the only sugar and rum producing country in the world, and New Zealand the only corn growing country, there might be some reason in his argument ; but in that case private enterprise would provide steamers and ships for transport, because "the two countries " could exchange products with the " greatest advantage to each other." The fact that private enterprise does not establish a direct trade with Queennland is conclusive against Mr. Pearce's proposal. We trust, therefore, that the Chamber of Commerce will pursue an enlightened and progressive policy, and not waste its strength in the directions indicated by Mr. Pearce.