[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—In your issue of the 13th instant, you publish a leader on the above subject, and as this is a matter of particular interest to me and having a fair knowledge of the industry and its actual position, I should very much like to make some criticism on the points put forward.
It is extremely gratifying to know that the iron and steel industry is really recognized as the basic industry of the country, and consequently of vital importance nationally, but to suggest that a safeguarding duty on this industry would be so far-reaching as " to open up the whole question of a general tariff " is, I consider, very wide of the mark; as any increased activity and consequent prosperity in the iron and steel trade would be similarly reflected on other industries— most particularly the ones mentioned.
It is asked, " What would the shipbuilders say ? " I think the question should be " What are the shipbuilders saying ? " as a good many have already expressed their views as being strongly in favour of a reasonable safeguarding duty on the foreign imports of iron and steel, knowing full well that their British material would not cost them more, but would virtually cost them less. The same argument applies to the railway companies, and they would also reap an additional benefit in the increased demand for the transportation of British materials.
Coming now to agriculture. I think the farmers would largely welcome such a measure, as they are only too quick to realize the effect that the prosperity of the basic industries has on the marketing of their produce.
Finally, it is false security to imagine that cheap foreign material will always be available, as, if our iron and steel industry is- allowed to go out of existence, the foreigner will quickly seize the opportunity to revise, not only his prices, but also his conditions of supply which would create a very grave situation in the case of a national crisis, arising.— JOHN B. HADEN. Westfield :House, Andover Street, Sheffield.
Previous page
