LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 852, 25 June 1910, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

"A LIVINC WACE." TI-IE COMMON INTEREST OF CAPITAL AND LABOUR. Sir, —The concrete demand 011 behalf of labour for a living wage has boon actively pressed ever since tho big strike, of 1890, but without attempt to show how or from what source this is to be provided. A writer in ono of your contemporaries discussing tho problem moderately asserts that wliilo wages during that period havo advanced, only 25 per cent., the cost of living has risen by CO. Possibly tho latter itc-m is a trifle over-stated. A further cause for this increased cost of living beyond the effect of advanced wages exists, ill tlio increased cost of government during that period. Thero is a vaguo idea, held very generally, that the landowner, the capitalist, industrial employer, and trader are, as a class and severally, all to be inadQ to contribute tho desired addition to the wages fund and through taxation; but it appears, according to tho experience stated above, that the result has not so worked out, and that the extra wages are ultimately largely recouped at the cost of the wage-earners. Now, tho landowner or country settlor producing for export, is, by general assent, a small contributor to general taxation, although heavily rated for local purposes. Tlio capitalist, or money lender, on whom so much depends, lends Only when ho has a satisfactory margin ol interest secured over his taxation, and lie quickly withdraws his money 011 this failing or when 110 loses confidence. Tho employer and trading classes ever exist iindor keen competition, with no margin of profit from which tho advance . 011 wages could bo drawn, and so as tho cost of labour and tho cost of tlio conduct of business advanced, an increased margin of profit was unavoidable on thcif part. Tlio advance of rent is perhaps tho' heaviest', real hardship, and' especially so to tho wagooarner. This in part is duo to tho great rise iii the prico -of city and suburban land, which has largely been forced up -by' speculators, who again havo often boon aiclod by Government buying, and always tho Government s extreme valuation of all land. This advance 110 doubt is likely betimes to partially succumb ■ to economic influences. But the. excess 011 rent is also largely attributable to the greatly increased cost of house-building, duo to tlio enhanced prices of materials, especially timber, created by the. increase at every stage in cost of wages from tho bush-foiling to the completed building; together with -the. abundant harassment and the' risks to which contractors and other employors of all grades havo now to submit.- -Those a-ro-risks which in industries and in all forms of employment havo now to be taken into account and covered if bankruptcy is to be avoided. Tho trader lias similarly to cover the cost of'the extra hands necessitated by restricted hours and holidays, and also tho greatly ni- ; creased local and general taxation which he has to contribute. So, taking stock of -tho general effect and position, is it to bo wondered .at-, if as stated, tlio-extra cost of living lias fully, kept paco with any increase on tlio rate of wages? , But then this perhaps' is not tho only causo of the general increaso in cost of living. During this last 20 years tho public debt has been enormously increased by tho Stato and local bodies, with, of course, its attendant and enormous . drain for interest. Tin, Stiil./i has further, wisely or otherwise, added heavily to public burdens, over tho cost of education from primary school to tho university; also over hospitals, charitable aid, old ago pensions, and superannuations; and by much lavish and wasteful expenditure, through somo of which the wage-earner is supposed to lia'vo been specially advantaged. Bo that as it may, as a result tho public taxation has risen iii volume from £2,179,739 in 1891 to £-1,646,751 in 1908; or from £3 9s. 2d. per head of tho population to £5 os. 4d. Like tlio l'iso in wages, this extra taxation gets widely distributed in its ultimate, effect, so that tlio wage-earner who complains of tlio extra cost to live must 'realise that others suffer with him; while tho Stato to which 110 probably looks for his living wage must further add to tho general burden if it is to moot this over-increasing demand.

Then there is further food for reflection in the fact that to-day the iiverago wages in New Zealand aro perhaps higher than in any ot-hcr country in tho world, and this while at tho same time tho chairman of our leading bunk, with tho support of his most experienced director, complains of the accumulation of money in tho banks' coffers, there lying idle because, as they state, there is a want of confidence abroad. Strange, is it not? Apparently because of this divergence of interests the community is confronted with possiblo stagnation and retrogression. Thero ore, unfortunately, those who see advantages in tho jar of classes, but it is obviously to tho advantage of all that the true relation between capital and labour should be' better understood, and the cause of tho oxtremo cost of living mado elenr.—l am, otc., BALGOWNIE. June 24, 1910. NO-LICENSE CONVENTION. RESULTS FROM NO.-LICENSE. Sir, —I have read the reports of tho No-License meetings now in Wellington, and last night listened to all that was said by their speakers in tho Town Hall. I could not. help being, struck at tho .absolute want of data to prove that No-Licenso was a success. Of course thorn was declamation in abundance— as might bo expected—but evidence to prove thoir ease was entirely lacking. The reason is plain: No-Licenso and Prohibition do not promote temperance, and tho proof of that statement increases every year. Tho time has passed to declaim against drunkenness—for the reason that all men abhor it. Tho question is: How can temperance be advanced!' And No-License cannot be said to support it. A few years ago the State of Maine was continually quoted to prove the value of Prohibition. Mr. L. M. lsitt visited that State and returned to New Zealand with "a good report," but it was very much like his report on Ashburton (entirely different from Mr: T. K. Taylor's), and obtained not from official data, but on "partisan" observation. It was worthless. Before last election I published tho official figures for drunkenness in Maine, and the No-License leaders made the excuse that they wero published too near the election to be- verified. A miserable excuse, but it served a purpose. Considerably mole than a year has passed since then, and yet those figures .proving appalling drunkenness in No-Lieense towns, stand unrcfuted, and for tho reason they are absolutely accurate and true. Had they been false or "faked," tho No-Licenso leaders would have been supplied with the strongest woapon in their history: Their arguments would ho thereby rendered unanswerable, and all opposition to NoLicense would be 'effectively killed. ISut they aro truo —too trim for Messrs. L. M. lsitt, A. S. Adams, and their friends, and hence tho "conspiracy of silence." 1 challenge them now to publish: (1) The arrests for drunkenness for ten years in tho towns of Maine—say, Portland, Bangor, Biddeford, Lewiston. Aunnsta, .Watcrvillo,

(2) Tlio annual number of commitments to gaol in the State of Maine for drunkenness for ton years. (3) The number of divorce cases in tho State of Maine for ten or twenty years. (These arc specially bad.) After sixty yours of Prohibition wo should expect sobriety and respect for marriago law. As a matter of fact thero is far moro drunkenness (pro rata) than ill New York, Philadelphia, or Wilmington, which are under License, and a much higher percentage of divorce. What liavo tlio exponents of_ Prohibition to say to these truths? Will they explain them? In addition, will Messrs. Isitt and Adams explain: (4) How so many towns (1 think about fourteen) which were "dry" have gono "wet" quite recently? (0) Mr. Adams, in Dnnedin, quoted Worcester as nil example of a very largo town which went "dry." Will ho explain how Worcesctr, after. nearly two years of No-License, has reversed its decision, mid has quite recently gone back to License? Tlio people of New Zealnnd are sometimes credited with knowing a good thing. Perhaps tho gentlemen I refer to will give the people of tho towns in question credit for knowing a bad tiling and for rejecting it after some experience. At tho risk of imposing too much on your space, I will only ask: ' (6) To explain why tlio Centrftl Federated Union of Greater New "iork and vicinity (Labour unions), which represents some 285,000 members, havo doclarcd against Prohibition and NoLiconso? Iu tho resolution tho following paragraph occurs: —. "Whereas experience has demonstrated that Local Option and Prohibition laws offect no moral good, but on tho contrary foster and compel hypocrisy, criminality, political degradation, and tho plying of graft," etc. Now, while it will be admitted that American workers are good judges of what makes for progress, our Now Zealand No-Licenso agitators might explain their action in this respect.—l am, etc., WJI . THOMSON. June 24.