A PARALYSING BUSINESS DANGER.
(To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR.")
Sin,—If any business man were asked if he could conduct his business when a third party had the right at any time to compel him to pay one-third more than the prices fixed in any or all of his contracts, he would laugh and say of course he could not, as in such a case he might be made bankrupt before he know where he was; and this is so obviously so that he would look upon his questioner as a lunatic or a joker. Yet this is prac- tically what the Board of Trade has power to do under the " Safeguarding of Industries " Bill. An illustration will show most simply how this would be, and what should be realized is that this Bill deals, not, as so many people imagine, merely with goods manufactured by key industries, but with goods of all descriptions. Supposing some firm had purchased goods abroad to the value of £600,000, which it bad sold to some works in this country for delivery over six months; under the normal working of the Act, the Board of Trade might make an order declaring the goods to be " damped goods "—either on account of cost of production or depreciation of exchange—in which case a duty of 333 per cent. would be charged on them forth- with, subject to only seven days' grace! In the foregoing instance, if this order were made within a month of the con- tract being concluded and delivery started, the importing firm would be called upon and have to pay about .E166,666—i.e.„ 833 per cent. duty on .2500,000, being the five months' un- delivered portion of the contract. This £166,6613 would be a dead loss to the importing firm, and it is obvious that business could not be carried on under such conditions.
If there is one thing more necessary than another in trade it is confidence, and if confidence is more necessary in one thing than another it is in regard to contracts. When a con- tract is signed it is necessary that both parties should be con- fident that it means what it says, that rights and liabilities are finally fixed under it, and that neither party can be called upon to perform more than it requires. Yet here we have a piece of legislation which violates all these essentials and under which a man signing a contract may be called upon to pay 33} per cent. more than be anticipated. This is so inexpedient, unfair, and immoral that it can only be present in the Bill through the ignorance and inexperience of business of its drafters; but nobody appears to be aware of the position, and the Bill will slip through with this terrible defect in it unless strong and widespread agitation is aroused without delay in regard to it. The remedy is quite simple, being in accordance with common sense and honesty, and is that each duty should be levied only on goods imported under contracts concluded subsequent to the order applying that duty. Then contracts can be signed with confidence; otherwise trade will be paralysed, for nobody will be able to sign a contract when he may subsequently be called upon to pay 33i per cent. duty on the undelivered portion of it. The Bill is presently passing rapidly through the House of Commons in what is practically a purely formal manner, as the large Government majority is quite passive and obediently votes apparently without thinking, its listlessness and indifference being displayed by not even a quorum, according to the newspapers, having been present during important debates.
If the position is to be saved it can only be done by the people themselves holding public meetings of protest throughout the country, for the Government will pay attention to them, and I would appeal to all who have their country's interests at heart, whether Protectionists or Free Traders—for Protection versus Free Trade is not the point at issue—to organize such meetings at which I would suggest that the following resolution be moved :-
"That this meeting emphatically protests against the proposal in the ' Safeguarding of Industries' Bill to levy duties on goods imported under contracts concluded prior to the dates of the orders imposing these duties; as it is inexpedient, unfair, and immoral to tamper with existing contracts and to make importers pay duties which were not in existence and which they could not provide against when the contracts were made. That this meeting considers that such procedure would con- stantly expose importers to grave losses against which they would be powerless to protect themselves, and maintains that each duty should be levied only on goods imported under con- tracts concluded subsequent to the order applying it."
The point of which I complain in this Bill is, in essence, retrospective legislation which is not merely unjust but vicious, undermining, as it does, the very foundations of liberty. It may be in the present instance only in regard to finance, but if the principle is accepted no man's liberty is safe; for, by retrospective legislation, he may be pnt in prison a month hence for doing to-day what is perfectly innocent, but what, by legislation passed in the interval, becomes a crime. A vital principle like this must be held sacred and inviolate, and I trust that the community will insist that there shall be observed, not merely in the present Bill, but in all legislation this cardinal principle of justice, that legislation shall never be, either directly or indirectly, retrospective.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
