Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, SEPT. 10. 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8917, 10 September 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, SEPT. 10. 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

THE farmers who, by thoir representative organisation, claim that Customs duties shall be levied for revenue purposes only, cannot consistently object to a removal of a duty on flour, if such duty is levied for protective purposes and not merely for revenue. But the farmers can claim that if the duty on articles they produce is removed then at the same time the duties on all the supplies they require should also bo abolished. So long as they are compelled to pay artificially increased prices for the supplies they require, they are handicapped in the work of production. We do not believe that the flotir duty is of the slightest benefit to the farmer. In this belief wo are supported by the views expressed by Mr John Bennie, a well-known farmer of Doyleston, in Canterbury, who slated that; “ho approved the proposal to remove the flour duty. He had been growing wheat for the last forty years, and be had never thought that any benefits had been gained by the imposition of the

duty, except in a year when wheat was scarce. The Now Zealand farmer could produce wheat cheaper | than his contemporary in any other I country, excepting Canada, and certainly he had nothing to fear from Australia. The cost of growing wheat in Now Zealand was about Is 3tl u bushel, which, with the addition of a rental of £1 per aero, and the cost of reaping, ore., made a thirty aero crop work out at £2 15s per acre. In Australia it took two years’ work on the laud to produce n crop of from twelve to fifteen bushels per acre, with only fallow laud between the crops. The Now Zealander could grow from thirty to forty bushels an acre witli turnips or rape between the crops in the same time. It was true that last year the consumers’ costs had boon higher, owing to the scarcity of

wheat caused by the wet season. They had, in addition to paying duty, to pay £1 per ton extra, but that was exceptional. In 1803 and 1901 the farmers produced wheat at 2s a bushed, and after that a good number of thorn forsook the growing of wheat and went in for sheep I farming. The price of wheat in | Now Zealand was ruled by the market price in Loudon, and, as in the case of wool and mutton, very few farmers hold wheat over for a season in the hope of a higher price. That was too much in the nature of a speculation. _ Most of the wheat last season -was bought at 3s per bushel, but few farmers have benefited by the advance, there being so little wheat about. If the millers had lost or ■were making a loss it had not been caused by the price tof wheat this season. As far as the labour .question was concerned, it cost more to put land down in good grass than to sow it in wheat, and it took as much labour if done well.”

IN this connection it is ainnsiug to note some of the arguments advanced in favour of retention of a duty. The Dunedin bagmakors, for instance, (mostly women and girls), have telegraphed to the Commissioner of Customs —‘‘ Vv o view with grave concern the removal of the duty on flour, as it will most seriously affect our trade. Even under present conditions flour is beiug imported in small bags from Australia. “ Over ouo hundred hands will be affected if it is removed.” The number is exaggerated, but iu auy case is of uo consequence iu comparison with the million of people who would benefit if .flour was cheaper. Tiion the Australian organ of, the millers of July Bist alleges that if the Now Zealand flour duty is abolished ‘‘Australia will swamp Now Zealand with flour, as could America also. ” It endeavours to convoy the impression that it would bo injurious to New Zealand if

it was “swamped” with cheap flour, hut obviously this would bo to the benefit of every consumer. Of course, it would not beuent local millers, but is there any reason way nil the consumers should be compelled to pay special tribute in order to maintain more millers than are actually required. If the millers in a country which grows its own wheat, and whose markets cannot be reached by others without payment of freight charges, cannot compote with the outsiders then they arc obviously not able to perform the work they have undertaken. If the I people who are yelling for abolition of the flonr duty will apply to other duties the same arguments that they use in support of this demand they may see that, in every case restrictive duties injure all the people.

THE increased £cost of living Is affecting all tho public services as •veil as tiio industries. Ecr some, time past the Railway Department lias found it difficult to get recruits, and now trouble is threatened because tho hours aro too long and tho pay too little. It is stated that the latter, in these days of higher cost of living, is nothing like adequate remuneration for tho wort performed. There can be no doubt that the pay does not remunerate so well as it did a few years ago, because the labour laws and the protective system to greatly reduce the purchasing power of tho money received by tho employees. The remedy,'of course, would ho to abolish ali the {[restrictive duties, which process would nearly double the purchasing power of tho money earned, hut so far a senseless Ministry is striving to still further increase tho cost of living and lessen tho purchasing power of money. We do not question tho fact that under existing conditions tho railway men aro underpaid, and it is also notorious that in most cases they arc overworked. It seems to ns, hov> - ever, that if tho demands of the men are granted, as they should he, then the public, who have foolishly allowed the policy of protection and oppressive labour laws to prevail, will have to pay the piper Jay ; means of increased railway faros. During tho last few years there has been an enormous increase in too number of people travelling in the trains, but even though the employees have been underpaid and overworked, tho railway account has not shown a profit equal to failinterest on capital invested, and this also, though much that should have been charged to maintenance account lias boon charged to loans. There is a mystery hers which should ho unravelled by some member of Parliament, if any member can bo found who will give more attention to tho public interests than to party requirements. It may bo that tho public are paying too little for the service performed, but in any case it is worth while to inquire why oar railways do not pay hotter, seeing that traffic of all kinds lias so largely increased.

THE craftiness of The professional politicians lias boon well displayed by the members of tlie.l’oclcral House in Australia in connection with the raising of their own salaries without consulting the electors. Not satisfied with the more plunder of the Treasury, and this abuse of their position as trustees for the people, they arc actually using the plunder to debauch thoir constituencies and assist them to retain office and power. They are bribing the-people witli the people's own money, just as our politicians do, the only difference being that ours utilise roads and bridges as the means whereby bribes are given shape. The professional politicians arc reducing bribery to a fine an.