PRESS OPINIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 15 February 1927, Page 3

PRESS OPINIONS

To make a living out of poor land it is necessary to deal with considerable areas, and this requires capital. The amount of money that must be sunk in such land before any adequate return is secured is necessarily large, and those who are fortunate enough to have enough capital at their disposal would naturally prefer easier and safer investments. The gift of the freehold may attract settlers, hut in time to come tin* community limy suffer from the rise in "unearned increment” and inflation of land values. Finally, such a limited scheme as this is 110 substitute for a policy of sub-dividing lands already held in lots too large.—“ Auckland Star.".

'Pile Dnmnion certainly owes it to Great Britain to absorb as much immigration as possible hut we owe it as a first duty to ourselves to accept no more than will usefully fit into our industrial and agricultural life. It remains to lie said that, while "legislative or other expeditions may effect temporary adjustments, the only sure road, though a rough one. to trend is that which leads through harder work and less extravagance to increased production and a favourable balance "Of trade. —“Christchurch Sun.”

Every penny New Zealanders spend on foreign goods nt iv assist to solve the unemployment problem in some other part of the world, but it does not do anything to solve it in New Zealand. Of course, where necessary work is waiting to he done it is a good thing to be doing it. Unemployment is rife in the North Island, for instance, because there has not been so large an expenditure of loan money there as formerly, but the end«pvonr should not be to provide unemployment relief works in any centre so much as to remove the causes of unemployment.— Christchurch “Star.”

So long as we disregard the fact that the cost of our imports and outgoings in payment of interest abroad must be kept within the receipts from our exports, so long will money he scarce and enterprise cramped. That is a proposition that there is no refuting—Oamaru “Mail.”

The Millerton disaster remind us rill once more of the risks which miners take daily, risks which have some of them been reduced by scientific inventions. but which can never, perhaps, he wholly abolished. It reminds us. too. that miners, and indeed all workers who accept as one of the conditions of their labour for the community dangers from which the rest of us are exempt, li'ive a special claim on public gratitude and consideration. Tt is a claim which ought to be humbly remembered, even and perhaps most ol all when the demands of Labour seem, as they sometimes do. to be streched unreasonably far.—Christchurch ”Sun.”

Some (lav the cugenist idea that people should have to produce a certificate showing that they are physically and mentally lit for the performance of the obligations of parenthood may oouio to he accepted, if public opinion, guided by the scientist., should permit itself to he swayed in such a direction. But hum in nature is very rebellious. Besides, there are certain troublesome instances of gifted individuals, distinguished among their fellows, who were the fruit of a marriage that might have been considered hopelessly unougcnic.—“Otago Daily Times. ’

The Arbitration Court should he abolished and some authoritative and competent, body (appointed to fix from time to time a minimum or living wage and leave the parties to negotiate for the rest. Whatever happens the vicious policy of granting preference t<> unionists must he abandoned Every man has a light to work, and the State, through the Arbitration Court, should not bar him from working mere lv for the purpose of pandering to the whims of a noisy minority This precrenoo to unionists has converted decent men into tyrants and industrial savages An illustration of this was provided by the slaughtermen at the Feilding freezing works—“ Mercantile Gazette”

The dairy control scheme alone is levying taxation to the extent ol neailj £60,000 a year on the Dominion's dairy-fanners. Beyond that, its policy involves a heavy demand upon the country's financial resources, tor produce cannot be withheld from the market without locking up capital which would otherwise flow into productive channels. The supporters of this policy contend that it will increase the profits when the produce is sold, but there is no reason to suppose that mass speculation is less likely than individual speculation to make mistakes and suffer losses. The value of the system must be judged by counting disadvantage as well as possible benefits, and when consideration is given to the enormous cost of its establishment and operation, the certainty that the administration of so huge an undertaking must involve relay in the individual producer’s receipts, its constant need for financial assistance und the risk of losses through miscalculation of market prospects, the dairying industry and the country as a whole may well ask whether the experiment is not a piece of extravagance rather than a contribution to national economy.—“ New Zealand Herald,”