NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1394, 21 March 1912, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The figures relating to the woollen trade which Mr. AV. Pryor, secretary of the Employers' Federation, submitted to the Arbitration Court yesterday, have a disturbing significance. Between 1900 and 1911 the imports of woollen manufactures have increased by 104 per cent., and between 1902 and 1911 the home manufacture increased by only 10 per cent. The imports per head increased in twelve years by 50 per cent., and the home output per head has in ten years decreased by 15 per cent. The facts can be better stated by saying that whereas ten pv twelve years ago the imports were not much over twice as great in value as the home products, in 1911 they were between four and five times as great. Could there lie a more striking indictment of the failure of the nostrums of modern colonial Radicalism! "Liberalism," with its wastefulness, its devotion to a high tariff, and its anxiety to put heavy irons on industry is killing our largest manufacturing businesses. Either they should be killed or not— either we should import or not. That will be admitted. Our Radicals say we should not import. Very well. They have so managed that worn-out old Britain, the foolish old citadel of free exchange, supplies a larger percentage than ever of the woollen goods required by a people occupying a country in which the sheep provide the most of the means of life. Of course we know that the Radicals amongst us will say : "Place a prohibitive duty on woollen manufactures." This wouldnotproduce even a fictitious prosperity in the industry. For the first result would be a demand for hugely increased wages. The manufacturers would bo no better off. And no new capital would be invested (fewer hands are employed than wove employed ten years afjo). The public would simply find prices enormously higher. Nobody would really benefit. " There is no way out, wo are afraid. There is no salvation excepting in a return to free exchange. .

It is hard not to sympathise with those Labour writers who arc hopeful that a Labour party of sonic size may grow out of the little group that includes Messrs. Payne and Bobertson. The bad stain upon the Parliamentary Labour party at its very beginning must weigh heavily upon the spirits of earnest Labour mcn,_ although, of course, it is their business to pretend otherwise. Thus Professor W. T. Mills, in an editorial in the Voice of Labour, deals with the painful subject in this way:

The complaint because certain pledges have been broken tloc-s not interest me. Neither Mr. Hobcrtson nor Mr. Payne were the candidates of the Lalwur party. The pledges made by them were not made to life Labour parly. Tliey never made any pledges to the Labour party. Thsy have no Labour party pledges to break, and they have broken none. But all (ho Labour party candidates were pledged to independent action and to the best possible service on behalf of certain measures. I do not want these pledges broken. They must not be broken, i do not believe there is any intention of breaking them.

There certainly arc pledges _ and pledges, but all pledges are alike in this, that it is dishonourable to break them. And a man who will break a pledge given to a whole electorate will break any other pledge. It is a little shocking, we may observe, to find that Professor Mills is "not interested" in such an evil innovation as that introduced by Messrs. Payne and Robertson. Such an attitude can only do enormous harm to the cause he advocates, for the public, however ready it may be to wish Labour a fair field, is not yet, as tho Grey Lynn meetings show very clearly, ready to give any sympathy to a party that is "not interested" in questions of rectitude. There is a rude shock awaiting the Labour party if it thinks that it can afford tD bo anything less than perfectly scrupulous in its dealings.

A number of letters which wc havo received from correspondents suggests to us that we have not properly apprehended the full importance of tin ceremony of laying the founda-tion-stone of the new Parliament buildings. It is really a very improper thing that this huge work should be hurriedly put in hand at this juncture, and we trust that when Parliament meets the Government— if the "Liberals" are still in power — will be asked to explain the matter. To most people it will appear perfectly obvious that the sudden action of the discredited Cabinet, under notice to quit, is due partly to a desire to bo in a position to say that the Ward Ministry began the work and partly to a desire to heap up the financial burdens with which the successors of that Ministry will have to grapple. We arc leaving to another occasion, however, our general comment on the wicked and unpatriotic planning with which the Government, in its anger and bitterness, has decided to close its career. In the meantime it is suggested to us by one of the correspondents referred to that the names upon the foundation-stone will be interesting. No doubt the Ministry or some members of it will be granted the immortality _of the graver's chisel, and nobody will much mind. For the stone will in the years to come be known as the tombstone of Wardism—the political memorial of loaders who led their party so well that they had to retire in order to pive that party a little longer lease of unhappy life.

• A Chhistchurch telegram in this issue reports a notable statement by Mr. J.uies Allen on railway construction policy. A year ago Mr. Allen could have, made his statement in the full confidence that he would be abused and derided by his political and journalistic opponents; but now bis views ;ue assured of a Fair consideration. He said he did not believe in extensive borrowing by 111- Government, but be realised I hat railway construction must go on, ;uul he suggested that Die Government •night permit the people of a district to raise a loan of their own for the construction of the lines they needed, OQ the understanding that such railways should be. fold to thi> Stnte. fveo of aay charge for "goodwill." The

principle, is, of course, not new. Sin .los::pii Waui> on one occasion approved of it, but subsequently he turned right about, aiid*ivound up by leaving everybody wondering whether there was anything which his Government could decide on a basis of clear principle. Mi:. Allen does not, apparently, suggest that there should be any questions of guarantees on either side—either by the State or by Hie railway-building district; and this is wise. If the construction of local railways—national railways could always be kept, as the State's business alone—were left to local bodies, no unprofitable, or unnecessary lines would be built. The power of State purchase would sufficiently safeguard the principle of State ownership. One thing is quite certain — that an end must and will be made of the present system, under which the construction of railways is determined by the political necessities of the party in power. It is a system from which must flow, in the nature of things, a thick stream of moral and material ovil.