The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-10-01
CHAMBERLAIN ON TARIFF QUESTION He Says Il Is Not We'll Wtb
 British Trade PRESENT SYSTEM ONE SIDED 
After Long Period of Success, Ssya the @yeAcnial. Secretary, the Un- restricted Free Import Policy
 Has Shown Bad Signs. '@'

CAAeetAtbSA
 contributes to the Daily Telegraph this
 morning a letter which is intended to
 serve as a preface to the republication in book form of a series of articles which
 have appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the fiscal problem. The letter however,
 is practically a complete exposition of
 hts proposed policy.
 After disclaiming the credit ascribed to him in some quarters for the authorship , of the articles in the Daily Telegraph, which, he says, constitute a conclusive indictment of the present one-sided sys-
 tenn of free imports, MT. Chamberlain proceeds:
 Tt is not well with British trade. Af-
 ter a long period of success the policy
 of unrestricted free imports has shown
 evident signs of failure Our exports are stationary In amount and declining in
 character. We receive from our compet- tors a larger proportion of manufactured
 goods and we send them a larger propor-
 ton of raw materials than we used to.
 Our supremacy in what have always
 been considered our standard industries.
 has been wrested from us. or is seriously
 menaced. One by one our markets, once profitable and expanding. are closed to
 us by hostile tariffs We have lost all
 power of bargaining successfully for the
 removal or reduction of these barriers to our trade Our colonies alone continue to increase their purchases, and even here
 we must abandon all hope of expansion, and we are threatened with the loss of our existing trade if we are unable to
 meet their requests for reciprocal prefer ence.
 Competition Not Fair. Our competition, which is already so tacute, is not fair competition. It is sup i ported by bounties, fostered by the opera :. tions of trusts and strengthened by the i economical advantages which our oppo- | nents enjoy in the shape of cheaper labor 1 and, in the absence of all those regula- , tons which we have assented to in the 1 interest of the working classes in order l to raise their standard of living. The 1 cause for inquiry Is overwhelming and 1 these articles suggest that the cause for 1 reform will be overwhelming also. Inc { supporters of our anticipated policy resort i naturally to we'll worn devices, which | have always been at the service of every opponent of reform Are they not written i in Sydney Smiths immortal Noodles orationY
 This is the thin edge of the wedge; 1t calls in question the wisdom of the irre@
 vocable law, Tt Is impossible to foresee
 the consequence of such a change; 1t looks
 well in theory. but it will never do in practice The advocate of this change was at one time of a different opinion
 '1t Is curious to find men who boast of their immaculate radicalism using the very same arguments that Sydney Smith attributed to the most rabld tories, and of
 which he finally said, They are indicative
 either of mprobity or intellectual weak ness, or of contempt for the understand ing of those on whose minds they are 1 destined to operate.'
 1 The Noodle Grafton. "But after all, the "Noodes oration ! although 1t may consist of irrelevant . platitudes does not contain actual mis-. ] rt presentations. The utterances of the ; Noodle are not free from this defect. i They should abound in statements Tor l which there is no foundation, culminat- ! ing in the bold assertion that those who | called attention 10 the dangers of our | present system, are prepared to restore
 all the evils of the anti-corn times and | reduce the masses to actual starvation. l It is not easy to characterize such per- l versions of the truth in parliamentary l language. They are founded on garbled | and incomplete extracts from speeches, selected without regard to their general tenor, and they attribute motives and intentions which exist only in the i'm aglnation of the free food controversial- ist.
 "The line of argument, eoncisely stated. seems to be as follows:
 Firstly, It is intended to give prefer
 ence to the colonies whose chief ex- ports are articles of food It will there-
 fore, be necessary to put duty upon
 food This statement implies that food
 Is free now and deliberately ignores the
 fact that large part of our revenue Is
 raised by taxes food and drink the
 bulk of which is consumed by the work ing classes.
 Whole Duty Paid By Consumer.
 Secondly, the whole amount of the new duty will be paid by the consumer. This
 Is contrary to the doctrine of the most eminent of modern economists, who say
 that where an article is imported from foreign country, and Is aIso produced at home and In the colonies, tax upon the foreign article alone will not raise the price proportionatey with the duty. but that the cost to the consumer will be mainly regulated by the supply and demand. This is especially the fact when the duty is small. There Is much experi- ence to confirm the theory Of the econo- mics. Neither in France. Germany nor in any other protected country have the prices risen by the amount of the pro- tective duty, while In this country the small tax of one shilling on corn did not raise the price at all It should be noted that the danger of the future is not rise in prices owing to taxation. but a failure in the supply due to natural causes, such as drouth or to artificial combinations. such as the Letter corner This danger Is greatest when the sources of supply are few and lend themselves to monopoly. while the policy develops new markets and increases the food produc- ing areas of the world, will tend to cheap ness and above all the stability of price,
 Thirdly, 1t Is said that the duty to be imposed would be a heavy one. at least five and perhaps ten shillings a quarter There Is absolutely no foundation for this assertion in any of the statements made by the advocates of tarif reform It is pure invention of the opponents of all change. a bogey, raised solely for the purpose of frightening timid people"