NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 854, 28 June 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

We arc indebted to the Manaicatu Standard for noting and placing on record an amusing exposure of the Hox, T. Mackenzie. On Saturday we drew attention to the fact that the Minister at a gathering attended by Mn. M'Nab, one of the champions of the dairy school project, ridiculed the idea that the dairy school was wanted. What did they, want a dairy school for? he asked. Anyway, he was against the idea. And this although Aln. M'Nab, in several long and careful speeches, had convinced the country and his colleagues that the school was an urgent necessity. Now the Standard reminds us that on the very next day Mn. Mackeszie, in speaking to a deputation on the ilax industry, endorsed the views expressed by Mk. M'Nab, whom he , said ho would consult, following up the announcement that "if any man is capable of thoroughly and completely investigating any question, that man is Mr. M'Nab." Eeally, it seems that Me. Mackeszie owes Mk. M'Nab and the public an explanation. Which of his opinions on MR. M'Nab is the right one —the one given at the smoke concert or the ono given next day? Remembering some bouts between the two Scots in Parliament, we looked up Hansard, and found that on October 4, 1907, Mr. Mackenzie became heraldic and Scottish over the mottoes of the rival clans. The M'Nab motto ho gave as "Timor omnis obesto" — "away with all fear"—which may bo good Scotch if bad Latin. And he urged Mr. M'Nab to abandon his motto "and adopt that of the grand Mackenzie clan, which is 'Pro Deo et patria'—'~For God and country'— and also to adopt their arms, 'The burning bush,' signifying, 'We shine, but do not burn.' " If a Sassenach paper may intrude on these Highland sanctities, we would suggest that Me. Mackenzie ought to abandon his burning bush ana take a weathercock for his arms.

An exaspcratingly brief and ■ indefinite cable message yesterday gave us an item of news of an importance that it would be impossible to exaggerate. This was that the United States Senate Committee on the cost of living has reported that even if the tariff were removed, there would bo no relief to the consumers, since the cost of living is due "to the shifting of population from foodproducing to food-consuming occupations." Such a statement could not have been made without a statistical basis. We could have . done with a very long message on the subject, and the text of the Committee's Vcport, which is evidently a progress report, will be awaited with much interest. Although, as wo have contended on former occasions, the relief possible from a lowering of the tariff is under-estimated, yet it is the tariff that is chiefly responsible' for the trouble. This may seem a paradox, but it ceases to appear so on a little reflection. It was the tariff that did most to turn the population from foodproducing occupations, but the removal of the tariff will not unwind the coil, for the reason that most of tho occupations to which it gave nurture have grown, through America's skill in organising production, strong enough to do without tariff shelter. Up-to-date statistics of the right kind respecting the distribution of labour are hard to obtain. Some useful figures are given in a privately-printed pamphlet on The Relation of Population- and Food Production, an address read to the Scottish Society of Economics by Ma.iok Craigie, for several years head of the statistical side of the Board of Agriculture. The rise in civilisation accounts for tho change in the distribution of labour: "The individual wants of the world's consumers tend to become greater, or at least more complex, and the volume and variety of the produce which man now demands for his enjoyment aro every year more extensive, and no longer confined to the first essentials of existence." In 1820 some 87 per cent, of Americans lived by agriculture; to-day, only 36 per cent, so live. Within ten years 6,000,000 Americans have gone out of agriculture, according to the chief of the United States of America Experiment Station Bureau. The world as a whole, indeed, is ceasing to grow its proper supply of food; and everything points to the fact that statesmanship should concern itself with encouraging and popularising agricultural pursuits. Unfortunately, the tendency of Governments is all the other way.

Much attention was deservedly given in America and Britain last month to a decision bj , the Supreme Court of Illinois affirming the constitutional soundness of the law limiting the hours of labour of women employed in factories to ten per day.

"It is known," said the Conrt, "to all mcu, and what wo know as men we cannot profess to bo ignorant of as Judges, that woman's physical structure .and the performance of maternal functions places her at a great disadvantage in the battle of life; that while a man can work for more than ten hours a day without injury to himself, a woman, especially when tho burdens of motherhood aro upon her, cannot; that while a man can work standing upon his feet for more than ten hours a day, day after day, without injury to .himself, a woman cannot; and that, to require a woman to stand upon her feet for movo than ten hours in any ono day, and. perform sovero manual labour while tlms standing, has tho effect of impairing her health, and as weak and sickly women cannot bo the. mothers of vigorous children, it is of tho greatest importanco to tho public that thn Stnto take such measures as may be necessary to protect its women from the consequences induced by long, continuous manual labour in thoso occupations which tend to break them down physically. It would therefore seem obvious that legislation which, limits the number of hours which women shall bo permitted to work to ten hours ,in a single day ... . . would fall clearly within the polico powers of tho State.""

Some people may imagine that thisjudgment is proof that "organic law," as embodied in the" Constitution of the United States, must, properly read, point towards the destruction of freedom of contract. But n little reflection will show that this is not so, and that the correct reading is that freedom of contract is not inconsistent with natural facts.