MR. CHAMBERLAIN AND THE TINPLATE TRADE.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sin,—Mr. Chamberlain having lent the sanction of his authority to the Protectionist fallacies on the subject of the tinplate trade, I ask your permission to set forth a few plain facts concerning this much canvassed industry. Mr. Chamberlain draws attention to the decline in the export of tinplates to the United States consequent on the operation of the McKinley Tariff. It is a fact that the quantity of tin- plate exported to America has fallen from three hundred thousand tons per annum before the introduction of the McKinley Tariff to sixty-five thousand tons at the present time. What one would like to know is how Mr. Chamber- lain would. have saved this trade to South Wales. Does he really suppose that the American people will abandon the tin- plate industry on his politely telling them we have " greater aptitude" for this industry than they have? The American people would scout the proposition. The truth is, one might
as reasonably ask a man to stop breathing as to ask America not to manufacture her own tinplate. She has unique facilities, and a, great home market ready to be supplied.
Mr. Chamberlain, in common with other Protectionists, regards the table dealing with the tinplate trade in the Board of Trade Return as proof positive of the injurious effect of hostile tariffs on a British industry. A more careful examination of the table would show him that it is in truth a vindication of the wisdom of Free-trade principles. The tinplate trade reeled for a time under the influence of the McKinley Tariff, but thanks to the advantages we derive from our Free-trade policy, it speedily recovered itself. As our ships sail on every sea to every land, we were able to open up new markets, with the result that the exports to all desti- nations in 1902 exceeded 44,300,000, compared with £5,600,000 per annum in the period of high prices which obtained before the McKinley Tariff was imposed.
Nor is this all. There are more tinplate mills working in the United Kingdom at the present time than at any previous period in the history of the trade. Moreover, every mill has increased its productive capacity owing to improved processes of manu- facture. More tinplates are being manufactured in this country than ten years ago, although our exports are not yet quite equal to what they were before the McKinley Tariff. What, then, is the explanation ? Simply this, that the home consumption of tin- plates has largely increased owing to the expansion of demand by the biscuit-making, jam, and confectionery trades. In Pro- tectionist reasoning the home trade is always left out of account, yet we have here an illustration of its importance. It -will doubtless interest Mr. Chamberlain to learn that the secondary industries, which he regards with so much contempt and scorn, act as feeders to the primary industry of iron and steel, of which, of course, the tinplate trade is an offshoot.
Apart altogether from the McKinley Tariff, the time was bound to come when the United States would have manufactured its own tinplate. It was probably an advantage to this country that the industry in America was built up by means of Protection, for the effect of the Protective policy has been to make it impossible for the Americans to manufacture tinplates for export. In other words, notwithstanding their unique opportunities, the Americans ,do not compete with us in the markets of the world as sellers of tinplates. The present duty on tinplate imported into the United States is nearly £7 per ton. Of this duty, 99 per cent. is returned in the form of drawback on the exportation of articles manufactured from imported tinplate. Thanks to this drawback, the Welsh makers still supply America with tinplate. Our exports of tinplate to the States are confined now to this draw- back trade. Last year we sold to America tinplate to the value of nearly 2900,000 for this purpose. The most strenuous efforts have been made by American manufacturers to capture this trade, but so far without success. The over-capitalisation of the Tin- plate Trust and the high price of steel in America—two circum- stances due solely to Protection—make it impossible for America to manufacture tinplates for export. As a consequence the Welsh inakers hold what might be regarded as the normal tin- plate export trade of the United States, and furthermore, are secure from American competition in all neutral markets. Having regard to these facts, it will be seen that the McKinley Tariff, pernicious as it was at the outset, has certainly not been an unmixed evil to the British tinplate industry.
I have recently received information that the American Tin- plate Trust is going to make another effort to drive the Welsh makers from its markets. Failing to succeed by adjusting the tariff, it has now appealed to its workmen to consent to a reduc- tion of 25 per cent. in their wages whilst engaged in the manu- facture of tinplate for export, threatening the men with a shutting down of the mills if they do not acquiesce. Obviously it is an idle threat, and the American workmen will indeed be fools if they consent to play the game of the selfish capitalists who dominate the Steel Trust and its ally, the Tinplate Trust. The marvel is that the American people have submitted so long to the soulless and degrading tyranny of the Trust magnates.
Allow me to quote an American writer who has expressed the opinion of many other thoughtful Americans with regard to the American tinplate trade :—" Protection is responsible for the Tinplate Trust and its many sins. The tinplate industry, because it came as an industrial mendicant, has always been a curse to America. It began by interfering with or ruining thousands of well-established and independent concerns, which asked for no governmental aid, but only to be left alone. Because of the increased cost of tin cans in 1891, canning factories were com- pelled to reduce wages, discharge hands, and pay lower prices for vegetables and fruits. The loss to farmers, who have since been unable to sell their surplus products to canners, has been enormous. The loss to labourers, who are deprived of cheap canned food, is also great. But dear tin and dear sugar in America have helped to establish more firmly the canning industry in England, from whence we get much of our jams and marmalade after paying a stiff duty on them."
One word in conclusion in regard to "dumping." The cheap German steel that was "dumped" into South Wales in the last two years was a great boon to many tinplate manufacturers, and in spite of Sir Thomas Wrightson, I cannot think that this boon was purchased at the expense of serious detriment to our own iron and steel industry. Let me commend to your attention a most admirable article, "Protection and the Steel Trade," in the first number of the new Independent Review. There Mr. Hugh Bell shows that, with all the talk of " dumping," our entire im- ports of iron and steel last year amounted in value to £15,000,000, whereas our own home output was valued at £150,000,000. As Mr. Bell forcibly says, "to offer a trade of £150,000,000 the benefit of Protection against a paltry 15 or 16 millions of im- ports would be the merest mockery. To tender it an import- duty on food would be to add injury to insult."
..—I am, Sir, &c., The Hoe, Plymouth.
HARRY JONES.
[Mr. Harry Jones's letter affords one of the most convincing proofs of the folly of Protection and the wisdom of Free-trade that we have ever read. It shows incidentally the futility of retaliation. When the McKinley Tariff was imposed there seemed a really strong case for retaliation over the tinplate trade. Fortunately we did not retaliate, and refused to hit back when we could only hurt our own knuckles. What has been the result ? Without retaliation the industry has been placed in a most sound and strong position. So much for Mr. Chamberlain's arguments as to the tinplate trade. They were just as fallacious in regard to milling, and also, we believe, as regards sugar, as is shown by other correspondents this week.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
