AMERICA AND FREE TRADE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 5213, 1 March 1904, Page 4

AMERICA AND FREE TRADE.

Those who arc in opposition to tlio preferential trade campaign of Mr Chamberlain—more especially those who take their stand on principle, as distinguished from party fooling—frequently assert that it wcjild bo wrong for Great Britain to abandon her free-trade position, because other nations are coming round to the same position. They point particularly to the United States of America, and allege that there is a strong party there in favour of abandoning tho traditional policy of protection in favo'ur of ono of free interchange with other nations. There is just sufficient truth in tho contention to save those who advance it from a charge of misrepresentation. Not a few intelligent and enterprising business men in America have come to tho conclusion that tho time is ripo for the adoption of a free-trado policy by their country. These mon hold that America has taken -a commanding position among jn-oducing and manufacturing countries from a variety of causes quite independent of fiscal imposts. They say that her success is duo to her extensive deposits of coal and iron, her immense forests, hor fertile soil, the variety and stimulus of her climate, her economical transportation, her extensive territory and coast line, her common schools, and above, all, because of the energy and intelligence of her people, stimulated by a political and industrial system that on courages self-asser-tion and ambition.

Expanding this argument, Mr Charles R. Flint, in an address delivered on 7th January last before the Chamber of Commerce at Rochester, New York, endeavoured to supply tho reason for America’s industrial superiority. “Having,” he said, “vast nndevclojicd resources and relatively small population, wo recognised that labour-saving appliances had to tako tho place of population. With them wo produce tho equivalent of tho work, without labour-saving inventions, of a population of over five hundred millions. Machinery is doing tho drudgery that has heretofore degraded labour, and tho American workman is its overseer. Ho is a part of a system that is developing the intelligence on which industrial supremacy depends. . . . Trade follows the price; price depends upon cost; seventy per cent, of cost is labour. .Wages in tho United States aro double those paid by our competitors in the densely populated countries. How can wo continue to pay high wages and successfully compote? There is only one way, and that :s by a largo output through tho highest development of special machinery made possible by centralised manufacture.” This testimony is to a'large extent confirmed by the report of tho Mosely Commission, and by the author of “America at Work”; while such an authority as the London “Spectator” admits that the output of tho ordinary British workman is 1J; tho German, If; tho Yankee, 2-J. Men of Mr Flint’s stamp contend that tho reasons why England is falling behind in tho industrial raco aro (1) because of the obstinate conservatism of English priding . themselves on continuing tho, ways of their forefathers, .instcapl of seeking methods which make most directly for the, end in view; (2) because of the need of a hotter system of general and technical education; (3) because their trade unions are, reducing tho quality and productiveness of labour- by hampering arid diminishing the work which each man! is allowed,to do; hy insisting upon the worst workman being paid as much as the best; by- retarding the introduction of labour-saving machinery; by diminishing profits and increasing risksj so that capital is finding more profitable employment'elsewhere. If is alleged, in, support .of this argument, that in the construction of the Westinghouso plant in Manchester, tho trade union limit of tho English mason was 350 bricks per day; under Stewart, the American contractor. 1800 bricks were laid per day. There cannot ho a great deal, however, in the contention that trade-union conditions count for much as between, tho two countries, when wo aro hearing so much of “walking delegates” in tho United States and mammoth strikes organised hy, them. ' In contending for tho gradual introduction of free tradio between America and other nations, Mr -no doubt unintentionally, provides a strong argument in favour of preferential trade within the British Empire. Ho remarks that “the commerce clause” in tho laws of -the States provides for ■.national free trade. This trade is by far tho greatest in volume of any commerce in the world conducted under the conditions of absolute free trade—free exchange of products amounting annually to, / over twenty billions of dollih-s, equal in amount to the sum of the exports and imports of all tho leading countries of the world. National * free trade, with protection against foreign countries, is the rule in the United States, and that is the ideal that many, statesmen have in view in supporting preferential tariffs throughout tho British Empire, with power of retaliation against foreign nations that do not open their doors to British trade. It is also evident that the American free-traders of to-day owe their conversion to tho, fact that other countries are beginning to erect tariff walls to prevent the enterprising Americans ousting their native industries. From the prominence given in their arguments to the fiscal campaign now proceeding in England, it is clear that they fall hack on free trade as! a last resort. This is one of the results which we have anticipated would flow from the adoption of preferential and retaliatory tariffs within the British Empire, and tho free-trade revival in the United States is one of the strongest reasons why Mr Chamberlain’s crusade should be prosecuted with increased energy and determination.