Rangitikei Advocate. SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1908 EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9129, 25 April 1908, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1908 EDITORIAL NOTES.

IT is a matter for regret" when Colonial Premiers make themselves a laughing stock to the British

public by their foolish utterances. Mr Price, Premier of South Australia, appears to be dktinguishing himself by a series of well-meant speeches which can only serve, to illustrate his ignorance of matters on which any man in his position should be fully informed. Speaking at Liverpool to a meeting of businessmen Mr Price said that if Liverpool merchants would pay South Australian exporters more than they received in London the trade would be transferred to Liverpool. This was such an obvious fact that the speaker felt he had hardly touched his hearers and therefore he went on to say that he would smash all the economic theories in by providing ■■ a bonus on all goods shipped to Liverpool. This really appealed to the business instincts of the shipping magnates and they showed their appreciation of the offer by hearty applause. How Mr Price supposes he is going 'to smash the theories of political* economists by such action it is difficult to see. Political economists merely i point out that a subsidy such as by Mr Price is paid by someone to some one else, in this case by”the whole people of South Australia to certain Liverpool shipowners. There the economist leaves the question and the authorities of the country concerned have to decide wliether such a transaction is a paying one.

THE advocates of tariff reform in Britain who apparently have possession of the other end of the cable which provides ns with news miss no opportunity of pushing their cause. On Friday we were told that a correspondent of the Daily Telegraph had stated that owing to the Australian preferential tariff of 5 per cent on electrical appliances a Hammersmith firm had engaged 800 additional employees. The statement may or may not be true, but it is considered good enough to ho cabled to Australasia. Even if true it only means that Australiaus will have to pay more for their electrical applitheTwhole world” had been able to compete on equal terms to supply their requirements.

WE wonder when the Ministry will cease from devising methods for expending the money of the taxpayers on useless objects. As a result of their work iu creating unnecessary departments and organising of inspectors and minor officials, the cost of administration has been enormously increased of late years. We observe that„yet another method has been devised by the Premier, no doubt with the object of keeping his name before the public in Great Britain. The New Zealand taxpayers are to he compelled to pay Reuter’s Telegraph Company to despatch messages three times a week to the English newspapers. It is alleged that the selection of news is to be left to the agency and that the items are to be free from bias, but of course any agency which wishes, to give satisfaction to its! employers will not send’Janythiug likely to excite their disapproval. Moreover .in a Ministerial journal we find it stated that the “news” to be despatched will include “any important statements by the head of the Government. ’’ Of course, the criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition thereon will not be sent, and as the present head of the Government doesYiot always present his statements in a way that disarms criticism or defies contradiction, it is likely that the English newspapers will be sadly misled in regard to New Zealand affairs. Such a means as this of wasting money was certainly not required. There is no necessity whatever for taxing the people of this country to supply news to English newspapers which their proprietors are either not sufficiently enterprising to obtain and pay for themselves, or which they regard as useless to the reading public. We strongly object to the people being called upon to pay for the purpose of gratifying the vanity of politicians.