The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, NOV 26, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1942, 26 November 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, NOV 26, 1906.

Like our profuse correspondent Captain Young (whoso letter appears in another column) we have no very largo amount of adulation to bestow upon the microscopic thing which, like all other microscopic things, must have a name bigger than itself, aud therefore it must be called the native policy of the present Government. For many years it ha 3 been so obscure that little trace of it could be found, and if ono didn’t know where to find it they could search in vain for its existence. Like the übiquitous microbe of similar dimensions it has the habit of showing itself at intervals whero it is.least expected aud under tho most unsuitable conditions ; but its virulence is not formidable, its few moments of activity are transient in tho extreme, and its pathogenic effects are somnolent. Under those circumstances the Secretary of the Maori bights Conservation Association need not have occupied so much of our space in giving vent to bis alarm, for ho may be reasonably assured that there will never be any occasion for the services of a Tuwhakairiora (whatever that may be), a Hongi, a Kauparaha, or a Waharoa to fight such an infinitesimal foe so long as one small dose so bo obtained close at baud at Bellamy’s can be relied upon to lull the whole outbreak into quiescence for at least a year, or until tho concluding day of the ensuing session of Parliament ~ But seriously we incline to tho opinion that our correspondent aud his AssociI s ! ation are on a not only useless but mischievous orrand, for so long as there are millions of acres of native lands lying idle that might become a valuable asset not only to tho natives themselves but to tho colony—landa which the natives will not use and the Government will permit no one else to 1 use properly—it is not a profitable | thiDg for anyone to inflame, the native | mind against some use being made of | them. Since the days of the Treaty of ! Waitangi those lands have lain waste, ? and the native owners have made no j attempt to profit by thorn. Does our j‘ correspondent believe that the Maori j ever will farm his land or make any attempt to utilise it beyond cultivating a kumara patch with his fingers and ; running wild pigs and horses on the balance ? If he does he has not that incisive knowledge of the Maori character that may otherwise bo inforrel from the information which his letter affords. In its present condition the native land of the colony that is not leased to Europeans is a handicap on the progress of the country, for it contributes nothing towards local and general revenue while it is all the time enhancing in value as the direct result of adjacent settlement and expenditure. Yet our correspondent would have it left as it is for the Ea*ivo owners to run pigs on and tardy settlers to envy during many generations to come. That, most assuredly, is not the native policy wo want any more than the do nothing, taihoa policy at present in vogue. We have no desire to see tho natives treated unjustly, and would resent it as keenly as our correspondent or his Association would • but on the other hand there should be no desire to have the colony treated unjustly by thunlocking up of those lands until the Maori can be educated to a proper sense of true citizenship or induced to work meanwhile, whenever that could be brought about, and ho has a sanguine temperament indeed who could believe that it can be done in the present or the succeeding generation.

Before our correspondent Mr 0. Catton decided to “ fill the gap ” ho might have found out definitely whether there was a gap to be filled unless he means the gap that exists between the opinions expressed by the two Labor leaders, and in endeavoring to fill that gap he does nothing more than corroborate the opinion expressed by the Hon. J. Bigg. One can easily understand the reluctance of New Zealanders to admit that tho Concilia tion and Arbitration Act has been even a partial failure; but so far whenever the allegation has boon made it baa not met with denial. Even our correspondent will not go the length of saying that the Act has not been the means of making living more expensive, though ho will not admit 1

that it has done so to tho full extent of the (lifl'di onoo between presout prices and form or onos. In that ho is right, nud wo ugroo with him ; but that tho Act has caused a rise in prices to sorno extent thoro can bo no doubt whatever, and wo nood not trouble ourselves for prosont purposes to find out exactly how much of tho increase is duo to tho wording of tho Act. Mr

McDonald. JVJL.P., reckons it at anything botvvoon 20 and 40 per cant, and the Hon. Mr liigg, M L 0 , is oven moro indofiuito ; but neither nan or will say that the rise of about B.} per eont in wagos, with which the Act is creditod, in any way alcquately compensates for tho rise in tko co.-t of living which it has admittedly caused That is tho crux of the wliolo question, and that is the point apologists for the Act always troat with vaguest indefinitnness whenever they refer to it. But all that wo have said on that point our | correspondent corroborates, though perhaps unwittingly, and tho only point at issue botwoon us is whether or not “it has boon the means of ranking all workers of a trade or class on tho same level.” This statement of ours Mr Catton takes some trouble to refute; but clause 3 of his union’s award which he quotes has no reference to the matter. That clause refers only to those who by age, infirmity, or other causos are admittedly unable to earn tho minimum wage fixed, and all others are averaged and treated alike. Without such a provision many old and infirm men could not be omployed at all, for no employer could think of paying them the minimum wage fixed by tho award. A singular corroboration of our statement that the Act ‘' prevents the good man from earning moro than tho man who cannot do as much work, and therefore injures the best men bv preventing them from making the most of their time,” comes to hand since those words were written. There has been a strike of men at work at the Kilbimie (Wellington) tunnel, and it has transpired that the cause of

tlie strike was the fact that the men discovered that one of their number was getting 10s 6d per day while they wero receiving only 9s, and they accordingly demanded the same amount as the best man was getting, which the contractor promptly declined to grant, so they walked off tho job. The local award did not even ask the contractor to pay any man 10s 0d per day, but he recognised a good man and paid him what he thought was fair. Had he foresee n the consequences that equal pay would be demanded and a strike ensue, just because equal pay has become a settled thing under the Act for good and better men alike, he would certainly never have thought of treating tho better man so fairly, and he has suffered for his laudable desire, and the bettor man has now to accept the same as tho others who have returned to the work again. Does not this prove our contention up to the hilt ? As a matter of fact that contention is not disputed, for our correspondent frankly states that it is the men “ who consider themselves incapable of earning the minimum wage ” to whom clause 3 applies, and those men were not alluded to in our former reference, hence the non-existence of the “gap'' 1 into which our correspondent is anxious to drop himself, but he hasn’t found it. Nevertheless, we commend him for the moderate way in which he has put hi 3 arguments, having utilised the smoothing plane on his own sentences instead of trying to use the saw on ours.