Rangitikei Advocate TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5. 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8732, 5 February 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5. 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES.

• [ In- a moat number of the Spectator letter appears from Mr Frank T. iJisllcn, in which he expresses the opinion that the chief sufferers from : socialistic experiments are not the rich but the poor. As we are . generally told by socialists that their one object is to provide bettor conditions for the poor at the expense of the rich Mr Bnllen’s statement appears at first sight to bs somewhat of the nature of a paradox, His letter, however, makes it plain that when ho sneaks of the poor he refers to the “ mechanic or clerk or salesman or small shopkeeper, who, loving decent living, strives by day and night to provide things honest in the sight of ail men, to clothe his children respectably, and to give them food which, of coarse, is at least sufficient,” It i,; Oil this class that the burden of the cost of social!. l ic experiments largely falls. Any increase of the rates immediately causes a rise in rent, and makes the struggle harder for the rcspccfable poor who dread nothing so much as having to apply to the parish authorities for assistance. When at public expense the Poplar paupers are provided with letter food and accommodation than can be obtained by the hard-working artisan the very foundations of society are being undermined. There are many who, if once they ceased the daily battle for bread and allowed themselves to drift, would sink into the slough of pauperism never to rise again, and every effort should be made to encourage them to roly on their own energy rather than on help from the State. In this country we are fortunately in a better position, but every year a larger das is being developed who look to th State for assistance in every difficulty Life is not too easy at present for thi man who endeavours to maintain i family on an income of from £2 tc £3 a week, and yet this is the class which needs encouragement rathei than the noisy unemployed who ar« always looking for work and fearing that they may find it.

The late Colonial Secretary, the Hon, Alfred Lyttelton, has given the seal of his approval to a scheme put forward by Sir George S. Clarke (exGovernor of Victoria) for the imposition of a low duty on ail foreign goods discharged at any Imperial port, except raw materials. The tax would yield annually four or five million pounds, which Mr Lyttelton thought might be beneficially spent

in strengthemng the maritime communications of the Empire, under an Imperial Board sitting successively at Montreal, Bombay, Capetown, and Sydney, The first question to be asked in connection with such a scheme is what is meant by raw material ? Even the strongest advocates of protection admit that raw material should be admitted free of duty, as they realise that the supremacy of British manufactures depends on cheap production, but there is no accepted definition of ■what constitutes raw material. Generally we are left to conclude that the articles which do not appear in the Customs returns as “ manufactured ” or under the head “ food Land drink” are raw materials. I Even this definition, however, does not take us very far as in Britain and the United States pig iron appears under the head of manufactured goods, whereas in France and Germany it is not on the list of such productions. But even if we could obtain a clear and accurate idea of what is meant by raw material we should be no nearer a settlement of the question. What affects the Home producer is not in the least whether the material he buys is really “ raw ” or something very far from being raw. The thing that affects him is that the material he starts with should be cheap. Why js it that the non-taxation of raw material appeals to every one as reasonable ? Is it not that it is the interest of the producer, of the consumer and of the exporter that goods should be cheap ? But if our national manufacturers i appen to begin with a material vhich is not technically speaking “ raw ” why should such manufacturers be penalised because they find it pays them best to begin with partially manufactured articles, in d p Home trade it is clear that the nanufactured product in one inj dusky becomes the raw material for j another. Weavers .dp not spin ; they j buy yarn from the spinners and weave it. Dyers take the cloth and dye it, and in its finished state it provides raw material for the tailor. On what grounds is the first of these industries to be considered more worthy of protection than the other ? Therefore if it is proposed to tax all but raw materials we want some clear assurance what articles will be included in that category before the prospect .of chipping subsidies, which are not rcnuir.ed, will .tempt us to advocate a "return to* protection in Britain,