New Britain herald., 1929-05-25
bRlfISh ElEGI
 HIGHER l|u|lFfS
b6 I,ir l,ds M NE-
 Ita tnM
H.hAf.s RlINEY

LsnAsa. lGav sS e0-With both major po,iticAl paEtteA ths Censsrva- tivas snA Lah44teA committed to ''sasaguaraing se industry" In vary ing aagFsaa. lsadsrs of big business la i0rsat Htttain arc counting upon ah frea further tari6 barriers in plaaning their course after the gen. sral .election On May 90.
 lTAe Liberals are sticking to the traditional free trade policy of the Unitsa Kingdom, but only a sur prising landslide would give that party . stronger position that of pos- ably holding the balance of power tR tho new parliament.
 The economic side of the cam- paisn has in some respects been reminiscent of the days when ''the full dinner pail'' was . vital politi- cal slogan in the United States, hut without mention of protection" In speeches and platforms. Tho Eng fish. while ahowins symptoms of abandoning free trade. still shy at using tho American word, preferrinK the euphemism. safeguarding"
 A more direct United States in- tereat in this phase of Great Brit ain's policy can be found in the probable effect of higher tariff bar rters upon the diminishing AlneEt- can trade balance.
 In 1925 the United States sold 31.o33,sSs,3e9 worth of merchandise to Great Britain and bought t%12.. 70l,535 worth, leaving . trade bal- ance of Ss.1.151.s3l in favor Of the United States. The Empire Mar keting board then began to spend millions in strengthening the Buy British Goods' movement, and 1t is now considered almost unpatriotic to buy foreign goods of any descrip- tion.
 By 1928 the sales of American goods in the United Kingdom had dropped to to7e.3S4,S4O. At the same time American imports from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales were down to Ssss,lSs,536. reducing the trade balance to $5Ss- ls5,s04, . loss Of t32.s5s,500.
 Economic experts predict that erection of tariff walls around the United Kingdom will accelerate the diminution of this balance.
 In this respect it is interesting to note that neither the Conservatives nor the Laborites have any thought of tariff for revenue. All that is asked in any case is an adequate safeguarding against foreign goods which compete with British indus tries in the home market
 This question has already caused considerable trouble to Prime Min- ister Stanley Baldwin. He lost one election because he went to the country in favor of safeguarding when the people were not prepared for it. The first Labor government, then backing Free Trade. went into power at that time.
 MT. Baldwin's stand this year in regard to safeguarding almost dis rupted his cabinet; but. on the sur face at least, the ministers have tc0SuVu Au 0ktcCuNCut d0 tV tituttCu safeguarding. but only for those in- dustries which can prove before . government tribunal that they need 1t vitally.
 The Labor position is similar. This k . decided change in senti. ment for that party. The working people have always thought . high tariff would result in increased living costs and their one bitter experiment on . wheat tariK, which raised the price of bread to about 2S cents . loaf. still rankles.
 It is not believed, however, that any attempt will be made to restrict the flow of food stuffs. Canadian and Australian canned goods and certain other Empire grown foods get the benefit of a small preferen- tial tAriff, but California. Oregon and other American states are still able to sell the United Kingdom mill Hons of dollars worth of fruits and canned goods.
 Some Of tho American products which are likely to feel the weight of an extensive scheme include safety raxors, talking machines, films. cameras, farm implements, automobiles and iron and steel.