The Feilding Star. TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1891.

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 6, 14 July 1891, Page 2

The Feilding Star. TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1891.

Popular Fallacies ♦ The fallacy of the State interfering with the hours of labor, and of Protection, in France, is exposed by the Vicompte d'Avenel in an article quoted by the Review of Reviews. The writer gives the results of Freetrade influences during the last hundred years. The purchasing value of money has declined by one half in the course of this century. The landed proprietor has, on the othor hand, not suffered by the decline iv

the value of moaey, because his property, being in land, has increased proportionately. The property which was worth £80 a year in 1790 is now worth £160, but this £160 has only the purchasing power of £80. The landed proprietor stands, therefore, where his great-grandfather stood, neither poorer nor richer. But, the class who work for their living has benefitted. The average price of labor has tripled since 1790, and the cost of living doubled, therefore tbe workman of to-day is 50 per cent richer than his great grandfather. The workman alone has profited financially by the course of events. Yet it is the workman, not the geutleman, who complains. The workman wants to better his condition, and no objection is offered to that. The methods attempted are only objected to. Because Freetrade and the emancipation of labour from State control have achieved great things, it does not per se justify a demand for Protection, and for State interference with the hours of labor. If it is not possible for the State to increase the receipts of workmen by artificial legislation, ie is possible to refuse to increase their expenses by the same means. Hence M. d'Avenel's arguments against Protection. The result of it will be, as we have already discovered in this colony, to increase the cost of food, light, fuel, building &c, that is to fall on the poor, and when it has been clearly realised that, with the best will in the world, tha State is practically powerless to add one farthing to the wages of the worker, it may well be asked, if it is not indeed a crime to make tbe living of the poor more costly in order to add to the revenue of the rich ? The demand for an eight hours day is the Socialism of the poor, the demand for protection is the Socialism of the rich. The exposure of the fallacy of. one doctrine will remove the temptation to fall into the snare of the other.