Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8853, 2 July 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

DURING the debate on the Imprest Supply Bill on Thursday Mr Massey put a question of considerable importance to country workers. Ho wanted to know if the Premier intended to amend the Government Advances to Workers Act with the object of placing country workers in the same position as those in the cities and suburbs? "At present workers in the cities were given facilities for becoming owners of

heir own homes, and it was unfair to deny those facilities to workers in the country. The fact that country workers are not in the same position as those in the cities is strikingly illustrative of the manner in which ' our laws are framed to suit the dlkmorous crowd in the cities who sejdst at the cost of the primary producers in .the country, without whose ■ industry the towns would be nonexistent. The Premier promised to have a report- on the subject prepared. He also ‘talked about the i benefits conferred by this Act and the Advances to Settlers’ Act, which talk, of course, was beside the point, which, simply was whether country workers should be allowed "to share in certain alleged benefits. Mr T. Mcakenzie also raised another point of interest by complaining that fees for valuations under the Advances to Settlers’ Act were too high, and I the Premier promised to have full inquiry made into this question. The questioner nodoubt forgot that so long as numerous highly-salaried officials have to be employed to administer Acts the fees must be on a scale which will, to a large extent, defray the cost of their salaries.

Government has no objection to tax with one hand and take fees with the other, and indeed in'some respects is as many-handed as Briarens of the hundred ■ hands. Then, again, it is rather astonishing how frequently those valuationsunder the Advances to Settlors’ Adt do not allow the settler w borrow as much as he requires. It would seem that the valuer S oes ou t to.spy the land with «she object of putting up the values for taxation purposes uses a powerful magnifying glass, W l ,jxe his brother official wild values ror an advance from the State has aids to vision which diminish some things t£> almost microscopic minuteness.

EMPLOYERS in various parts of tbe colony have expressed strong disapproval of some recent decisions of the Arbitration Court, including that of granting to -the Otago Felt Hatters’ Union the extraordinary privilege of being able to claim a week’s full pay, oven if they are employed for only a fraction of a week. It has occurred to us to look up a few statistics relating to this hatmaking occupation which has received such singular treatment. Wo learn from the Registrar-General’s analysis of the census returns that the total number employed in this are 27 males and 26 females, and this also includes the ‘ ‘ cap and bonnet makers. ’ ’ We may therefore assume that the numner of “felt hatters” does not exceed 27. Now, in order that these 27 shall be employed in thatching heads instead of thatching stacks .or other useful work, a duty of 25 per cent, or Ss in the £, is levied on the value of all imported hats. This, of

course-, means that the buyer has to pay considerably more than the 35 per cent before he gets his hat—but that is another story. For present purposes it is sufficient to point out that last year the duty collected on hats imported amounted to no less than £33,646, or equal to over £B7 per head of the employees. The wages paid to those 27 hatters amounted to £3641, an average of less than £IOO a year each. The added price put on their products by the operation of the tariff amounted to £SIOO. So that for the mere purpose of employing these few men tiie people paid last year a total contribution of £28,746. Can it be soundly argued that such an “industry” is a benefit, or that its employees deserve to be paid even when they do nothing? If the State pensioned them at £IOO a year each the i purchasers of hats would save at least £35,000. .These men are employed at the cost of the community, and their labour is not one atom of use. The “industry” is truly a parasite—a noxious weed that has sprung up and developed by the aid of the vicious system of restriction of imports. The bootmaking “industry” is in the same category; in fact, every one of the “industries” which exist only because special taxes for their support are levied upon the whole community. Recently the makers of biscuits and chocolate were yelling for more “protection.” Biscuits imported have to pay a duty of 9d per lb., and chocolate and cocoa 3d per lb. In other Words, on every 61bs. of biscuits or ;41bs. of cocoa or chocolate the housewife has to pay Is for duty. And the total number of assistants in biscuit, factories is given as 65 males and while there

is only one cocoa maker. We shall probably hear oi this individual holding a mass meeting, doputationisiug a Minister, or forming himself into a union, or a hollow square, or sometning. In this country most of the absurdities of Gilbertian comic opera assume the form of reality.