Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1908 EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9121, 14 April 1908, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1908 EDITORIAL NOTES.

IT is satisfactory to note that the leaders of labour unions are being forced to realise that the cost of living has greatly advanced during recent years. This is the first step towards making inquiry as to the cause of the increase, and devising means for its removal. The other day a member of the committee of the Dennistou Miners’ Union condemned the Arbitration Act because it has failed to benefit the workers, and he declared his opinion that in 14 years there has been a decrease in the purchasing power of wages of 4s in the £. We believe in purchasing power has been much more than 4s in the £, but the fact that £1 will now only buy IGs worth of supplies as compared with its purchasing power 14 years ago, should compel serious thought by all who are wage-earners especiallj, and by the whole of the people who have to maintain themselves and others. At the very outset of the inquiry it must |become apparent that the cause is local, not foreign, and that there should be no reason why living here should not bo cheaper than it 'was 14 years ago — cheaper indeed, than in any other part of the world. Bat if men and women are employed in factories making articles which cost 25 to 50 per cent more than they could be obtained for from others who are bo willing to give us their services that wo erect tariff barriers to keep their products out, is it any wonder that the £1 earned by the miner, the farm labourer, the wharf labourer, the “railway servant, or any employee in any industry will bny only 16j worth of goods? Artificially increased .wages, shortening of hours of labour, and laws which add to”cost of production and jjseep out cheap supplies, must inevitably decrease the purchasing power _of money.

SOME time ago it was suggested by an Opposition that the Leader of tho Opposition should, like Ministers, be paid a salary, and Mr Field, M.P., who is a Ministerial supporter, speaking at Shannon recently, also expressed the opinion that the Leader of the Opposition should be paid, a year - , and be provided with a secretary. Both advocates no doubt take into consideration the fact that Ministers, with their high salaries, travelling expenses, and command of the various departments, have decided advantages over their opponents in the matter of “forming public opinion’’ at or near election time—to say nothing of the advantage which control of [the]] Treasury gives in enabling promises of roads, bridges, etc., to be made. The Opposition are, no doubt, [seriously handicapped, but if the Leader rsceived^a"salary equal? to '.that of_ a Minister would he have any j great incentive to continue the work of destructive criticism or improvement of the administration? It would be almost as profitable to bo Leader of the Opposition as to be a Minister, besides which the former would not be weighted with the same responsibility. Still further, is there any valid reason why the profession of politics should be made profitable? Are we getting or likely to get such good results as are obtained in other countries where ,the remuneration barely pays expenses, or where members receive no salaries? Is not the work of government one which should be in the hands of men independent enough to act on their convictions, and do the wort for the honour of doing it?

WHAT has become of the motto “Trust the People!’’ which a former leader of the Ministerial Party flourished so vigorously when the Party was most intent on deception or had more to conceal than usual? Mr Tregear, Secretary for Labour, is evidently not a believer in the principle of trusting the people, as in his exhortation to the Blackball strikers to give in if they “gained nearly all the benefits for which the strike was instituted’’ „he remarked that “it would be an entirely private arrangement that would be expected to be confidential so far as the press is concerned. ” Ministers were to be brought on the scene as marionette mediators, and the employers were expected to be then willing to make the concessions desired. All this instead of enforcing the law, or at any rate trying to enforce what is believed to be the law. But the people who pay the salaries of both Minister and Secretary of the Labour Department were not to know how things were being done. The “keepers of the ears of King Demos” were to be kept in the dark as to the process by which a breach of the law had been condoned, and all that was asked by the breakers had been secured. Here we have a public official dealing with a matter of the gravest importance, not only to the employers at Black-

ball, bat to the whole community, actually enjoining secrecy."”* For a long‘time our elections have beeu engineered by a political secret society, but that is certainly no reason why public affairs should be administered in a secret manner. It seems to us that secrecy of the kind recommended is entirely opposed to the principles which should rule in a democracy. The people have an absolute right to know what the administrators are doing and how they are doing it, or why they refrain from doing anything. It is also possible that we should 'have fewer disputes if we had a more impartial department and if Ministers were less timorous.

SHOULD Ministers lead opinion or they merely register the decisions arrived at by the people? Sir Joseph Ward, in his recent speech at Kaitangata, leaves no doubt as to his sentiments on the subject. After a feeble wail that it was an impossible position to have a Taw preventing strikes and side by side with it strikes going on notwithstanding the law, lie went on to say that people should really talk the matter over and try to discover an improved system of arbitration and conciliation or abolish the principle altogether. Under existing circumstances such an attitude in the head of the Government is absolutely contemptible. Sir Joseph might at least have said that the Government has realised that affairs are in a serious condition and that Cabinet was considering bow to remedy the evils existing and it would not have been out of place for him to have sketched the lines on which action would be taken. But he peacefully folds his hands and begs for instructions so that Ministers may be sure that they have a majority behind them before making a more.