Rangitikei Advocate. SATURDAY, SEPT. 7. 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8915, 7 September 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. SATURDAY, SEPT. 7. 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

THE discussion on the Tariff Bil is interesting to the student of political economy chiefly as revealing the crass ignorance of our politicians. For instance, the Hon. Millar can only see that a prohibitive duty means that some of the people •will be locally employed in the manufacture of the article on which it is levied. He cannot realise the significance of the fact that this means that those who want to use the article will have to pay for the support of its makers, who are thus being maintained by all the people while doing useless work. They do not add to the wealth of the colony

a single farthing, but, on the contrary, the community is debited with the cost of their just as if they were living on charitable aid, or were receiving pensions. Indeed, it would bo cheaper to pension them, because most of the extra toll taken from the pockets of tl.o people by a protective tariff does not go to the actual workers, but to a few factory owners. In opposing the reduction of the duty on cartridges Mr Millar said that if the duty was half a dozen other manufacturers would start. This, of course, really means that half a dozen others will have to be maintained by the public, who will be charged extra for their supplies to provide the necessary funds. Moreover, it means that none of the factories will make sufficient profit to enable it to pay better wages, because the market is limited to local requirements, and makers, obviously, cannot compete in the outside markets with those who have to ho shut out of their own. The hoot industry and the woollen milling show that restrictive duties, which encourage the over-multi-plication of factories to do the work for a limited market, result in miserable wages for employees, and the substitution of female or boy labour wherever it is possible.

THE Licensing Polls Bill, introduced at the instigation of the Premier, appears to bo a clever device to aid in keeping the party together, and at the same time serve the interests of the anti-prohibition party. It is a quiet hint to members that if they do not continue to give slavish obedience to the party which gave them political existence there may be a dissolution, and as they know that they would have no chance if deprived of Ministerial support, they may he (rusted to again fall into lino. They would be without the assistance of roads and bridges bribery, by which elections are now decided, and, as they have little individuality and no independence, the electors would not he likely to again return them. And what member who lias once been a political slave would dare to fight for freedom with a prospect of losing £BOO a year as a result of the struggle? On the face of it, the Bill appears to ho intended to prevent any difficulty arising in connection with the licensing polls in the event of a dissolution, hut its proposal to make the four chief centres single electorates for the purpose of the licensing poll is evidently the chief reason for bringing it forward. Hitherto in some of the cities the prohibitionists have been able to make certain portions uo-lieenso areas, but this proposal will, of course, prevent them from concentrating their voting power.

THE antagonistic attitude of the Ministerial journals towards those members who dared to vote against the party in a decision on the Tariff Bill shows that these organs regard slavery to party as far more important than service to the State. One Ministerial organ even goes to the extent of printing in black letters the names of those who voted according to their convictions. The incident servos to siiow how completely onr Parliament has [jbeen demoralised and degraded by the abuse of the party system. In an as. semblage of representatives of the people every member should bo perfectly free to vote according to his convictions, and ho should bo responsible to his electorate, not to any individuals who have seized or obtained the reins of office. But onr politicians and the Ministerial press appear to have become thoroughly imbued with the idea that onr system of government exists solely for party use. Even the Oilposition seonv to have no higher idea of their duty than is involved in the belief that they should turn the Ministry out and get into office themselves. The Ministerial press utilises columns of space to exalt the idea of loyalty to party, but has nothing to say about the true interests of the people. As a matter of fact it does not matter to the people whether Sir Joseph Ward or Mr Massey, or any other politician, draws Ministerial salary. What is of real importance to them is that bad legislation and wasteful administration should be prevented, and that economy should be combined with efficiency in the public service, and that only good and wholesome laws should he enacted.