The Daily News. SATURDAY, JULY 30, 1921. GERMANY’S TEXTILE BOOM.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 July 1921, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, JULY 30, 1921. GERMANY’S TEXTILE BOOM.

The comments . made by the Yorkshire Observer on the repoi’t from Berlin that German textile companies are enjoying the greatest boom in their history, contain much food for serious reflection. Practically, the Observer places the whole blame for the present slump in the British textile trade on the shoulders of the Government for their action in monopolising the purchase of the Empire’s wool clips, forcing up prices and making a profit thereby of seventy-one millions. There are, of course, two sides to this contention, the striking feature of the Observer’s comments being what is left unsaid, rather than the tale ithat is told. The policy of the British Government in relation to the control over the prices and disposal of wool may be a matter for controversy, but there can be no question that the producers derived considerable benefit from the comjnandeer. That the manufacturers were not unduly handicapped is conclusively proved by the eagerness with which new companies were formed, every old mill capable of being repaired and equipped being brought into service, and hundreds of thousands of pounds raised for capital. Then the Yorkshire and other manufacturers enjoyed their boom of high prices and profits, while the workers received record rates of pay. The result was the price of the manufactured goods rose beyond the price which the public could afford to pay, .so that, stocks accumulated, and either the mills had to stop, or sell at a loss. Many

mills closed down, partially or wholly, and then came the fall in price of the raw material, as the manufacturers would not buy unless they could get wool at their own price. Inevitably the stocks of wool increased, still further disorganising the market, but efforts were made to arrest the decline by regulating the quantity offered for sale, and those efforts are still being continued. It is interesting to note what Germany was doing during the run of high prices for wool and being practically cut off from obtaining supplies. According to the Observer, Germany readily adapted herself to the circumstances. The Germans were undergoing “a compulsory regime of economy, forcing them to use up war-time substitutes and materials, preventing the piling of stocks of textiles bought at boom values.” What was the result? On this point—which should be noted well —:.the Observer says : > “The British Government monopoly prevented Germany from buying wool .dHTHfi. aud after the .war at boom

prices, and now she is reaping the ad- ) vantage of filling her warehouses with j the cheapest wool since 1914, which 1 Yorkshire, owing *o losses on boom t priced stocks, the coal strike, and the ’ general depression, is unable to buy.” j This tribute to German resource I and adaptability is in striking contrast to the spirit of greed on the part of the British manufacturers. The policy of the British Government was not concerned with adding to the profits of the manufacturers, but was directed to securing the welfare of the whole Empire. Indirectly the Observer has strongly, though not in-

tentionally, emphasised the beneficial effect of compulsory economy, to the operation of which profiteering was a deadly enemy. The objective of the Observer is evidently the removal of all restrictions on the sale of wool, so that the cheaper the price the more room for profit by the trade. Herein lies the difference between the policy of the Government and that of the manufacturers—the former is not only endeavoring to protect the market value of its acquired wool, but is at the same time helping the producers, while the latter are callous as to any losses occasioned to the country

or the producers, and are only concerned to bring the price of the raw materials down to the lowest possible figure. To say that “Bradford is being hit in all directions,” and that the removal from the market altogether of the B.A.W.R.A. wool will be j “another win for Germany,” is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public as to the true state of affairs. The Observer holds a brief for the profiteering manufacturers, and, because of the weakness of the case, resorts to the clumsy tactics of abusing the other side, instead of carefully and impartially examining all the circumstances and giving fair and impartial comments thereon. We are pleased, to feel that a higher conception of the duty of the Press exists in the Dominion that is apparent in Yorkshire.