DEBTS AND TRADE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 494, 30 March 1933, Page 4

DEBTS AND TRADE

An important statement of Britain's position on the debts ancl trade issues, made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Leeds late in January, according to overseas exchanges, has aroused extreme indignation in America. Apparently Mr. Chamberlain's cairn and cold statement of the United State's debtcollecting difficulties . annoyed Amerfcans who had expected to find instead a more pliant debtor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer detailed the various ways in which the American debt could be paid, ruled out loans, and "further shipment of gold," and added: — "Effective means of payment would have to be found, and they could only be found by increasing saies of foreign goods to America, or, what would come to the same thing, by diminishing purchases from America." In short, America must buy if she expects to sell and to collect debts, and this raises the tariff ! issne. On the tariff the new | Democratic Administration in | the United States promises to j be conciliatory, and semi-official- | ly it is said that a debtor who offers a good trade agreement to the Americans may receive from them a good debt agreement, but — "It is recently announced at the White House that the President had no intention of ask- ' ing Congress for authority to defer payments, and he expects i them to be met when they are - due.". j Comparing this White House j statement with Mr. Chamber- ! lain's Leeds speech, it is plain enough that there is a gap to be bridged, yet it was hardly to be expected that the Chancellor's cold analysis of the position should have produced in the States the biggest "anti-British outburst" known in seven years. Of course, "outbursts" come and "outbursts" go. A rearrangement of debts and trade is a long time job, and a bit of momentary popular feeling may not register much in the final analysis. Unfortunately, it seems to have registered, through a concurrence of events, in the shipping subsidy policy of Congress. The Leeds speech, and other British statements in favour of protecing British shipping against subsidised rivals, seem to have struck the American mind just when Congress was dealing with the Estimates. In the ordinary course of events an economising Congress was expected to cut down the Governmental money spent on State aicl to shipping. 'One representative observes: — "It is certain that, responding to the demand for economy that was sweeping the country, ; the shipping subsidies would , have been materially reduced." But their friends inside and outside Congress made opportunistic use of the things that were being said in Britain. Con- ; gress was told that "Britain was seeking international agreements to the detriment of American shipping," and Congress opposition to this idea was so worked up that "the vote passed in full." Thus is history made. The debate contained a claim that mercantile marine ownership must be more evenly partitioned between the nations. But if there should be proportion and balance in shipowning, why not in trade? By a policy of tariff exelusion, the United States Government has built up trade balances adverse to other countries, New Zealand included. In other words, the Americans wish to carry their goods to us rather than carry our goods to them. Yet they wish to own the ships. Unbalance in ship ownership is immoral, but unhalanced trade — with someone. else paying tlle. piper— right and proper.