CO129-554-5 Commission of Enquiry into the Hong Kong trade depression- correspondence and report 27-3-1935 - 11-8-1935 — Page 147

--8-

171

be liable to lay the Colony open to retaliatory measures.

20.

The argument in favour of a tariff, on the

other hand, is more scious and is much strengthened

by the fact, already mentioned, that there is littlc

or no entrepot trade in cement. It must, however, be

remembered that any such tariff would open the door to

appeals for protection from other local industries.

The infant brewing industry, for example, might well

put forward a similar claim and further support it by

the argument that it was in accordance with world wide

economic practice to give protection to young and

growing industries.

especially since it would be pointed out that adequate

bonding facilities were already provided to provent

interference with the entrepot trade.

21.

Refusal would be difficult,

Moreover we have evidence that, to be effective,

the duty on foreign coment would have to be at least

$12.00 per ton, or roughly $1.00 per bag, and that even

so the price of Japanese cement would be a few cents

lower than that of the Groen Island Cement Company

product. Although it has been argued that the cost

of cement forms too small a portion of the total cost

of a building for this duty to make any material difference

to the building trade of the Colony, we are by no means

satisfied that such is indeed the case, and we are

unwilling to recommend any measure which will increase

the present high cost of living in Hong Kong.

22.

There is also the argument that no tariff

could be imposed against one country without being

imposed against all. The effect would therefore be

to exclude not only Japanese cement but also cement

from China and French Indo-China. At the moment this