Rangitikei Advocate FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL MOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8809, 10 May 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL MOTES

WE have received from tho Regis-trar-General tho statistical account of the manufactories and works in New Zealand. Wc have °not yot to hand the full details of the census, but the statistics provide us witli some valuable light on the progress of our industries. Wc may begin our examination of the figures by stating that about three-sevenths of the population, or 350,000 persons, may bo classed as bread-winners, the others being dependents, among whom are included wives and young children. Wo find that tho persons employed in manufactures or works number 50,359, and these figures include a largo number in what wo should more accurately describe as shops. The balance arc occupied in agriculture, transport, mining and professional pursuits. We propose to examine what proportion of tho population is assisted by the protective tariff, and it is clear at once that out of the whole number of

bread-winners wo must exclude nearly all except the 50,000 odd employed in factories of various descriptions. Turning to our statistics wo note those trades which employ more than 1000 hands. They are as follows, in order according to the number of hands 'employed:—Sawmills,' sash and door factories, 9111; clothing and hoof and shoo factories, 4120; flaxraiils, 4010; iron and' brass foundries, machinists, 893 G; printing, 3898; freezing works, 8260; dressmaking and millinery, 8039 ; tailoring, 3997; Woollen mills' 1549; furniture, ; 1538; butter and cheese factories, 1484; coach-builders, 1405; tanneries, fellraongorios, 1830; brick works, 1354. It is clear that sawmills, fiaxmiils, printing works, freezing works, dairy factories and bxicjc works would )jot bo affected .>

unfavourably If there were no tariff at all. Iron and brass foundries and machinists would probably flourish just as' well, since most of their work must be'done in this country, and the same argument applies to tailors, dressmakers and fellmongers, and partially to furniture makers, since the cost of carriage for furniture must always act as a natural protection. We admit that clothing and boot and shoe factories, and possibly woollen mills, might have to close were the tariff entirely removed, but these are industries which, in spite of the increase of the tariff, under the guise of preference to Britain, show a decrease in the number of persons employed since last census; moreover, they employ more women than men. The employment of women in factories is not very desirable, and those at present engaged in the work could easily find occupation in domestic duties. Without endeavouring to state the exact figures involved it is evident from those quoted that we are well within the mark in saying that not 5 per cent of the 350,000 bread-winners in this colony would be injured if all Customs duties were abolished. No one, however, desires entirely to do away with Customs duties, and it may fairly be urged that as the I main advantage of a Customs tariff is the. raising of revenue it should he applied solely for that end. Any revision of the tariff should therefore have for its sole object the raising of the amount of revenue required with the least burden to taxpayers and the least possible expense. We propose to discuss the methods to bo adopted to attain this end in a future article.

IN the course of an address at Waihi to the Liberal 'and Labour Federation Mr Millar, in referring to the labour laws, combated the contention that labour legislation had been the cause of the increased price ot living, and held that it was due almost entirely to the enhanced valueiof laud created by the increase of population, which was naturally followed by increased rent. Whether Mr Millar really believes this state meut, or whether ho made it knowing it to be false, he is in either case quite unlit to be Minister. We prefer the assumption that he believes in the accuracy of the statement, and therefore only accuse him of gross ignorance. If we ask anyone who lias lived in the colony for the last dozen years in what respects living is dearer than it was 13 years, ago the reply will bo that the items in the weekly expenses that have risen are rent, firing, moat, 1 utter, and eggs. Rent, it is clear, forms only one elcpaeut in the increase, and the fraction of rent which is due to the rise in value of laud is not very large. We may, for example, take the. case of a section of laud worth £35 twelve years ago with a house which cost £3OO erected on it. The ground rent at 5 per cent in this case would be £1 os, and the house rent at 10 per cent £3O, a total of £3l ss. Supposing that at the. present time the land has risen to £IOO the ground rout would be £5, hut a house of tiie same character could not he erected for less than £4OO, giving a rental of £4O, or, with ground rent, of £45. The increased cost of timber and labour has iu fact caused the rent to bo £lO higher than it would have been had the cost of building remained the same. It is to be noted also that every class demand better and more convenient houses to-day than those which satisfied them some years ago, and this requirement naturally involves higher rents.