Rangitikei Advocate. SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9341, 9 January 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. SATURDAY, JANUARY 9,1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE increase in the number nf unemployed in Britain is ascribed by some protectionists to the partially free trade policy of that country. These protectionists, of course, conveniently ignore the striking fact that the condition of the workers in Germany and the United States is much worse than in Britain, and that, in proportion to the population, their unemployed are more numerous. Discussing the situation in Germany a contemporary remarks: —“It may be that in some lines and in some countries German manufacturers have captured British trade. Generally speaking, however, British trade is quite able to hold its own, whether by means of or in spite of the policy of free imports. If we inquire into the circumstances of Germany it is not difficult to arrive at the conclusion that it is because of the free import policy that Great Britain has attained and maintains her commercial supremacy. Thirty years ago the German national debt was only £3,600,000, while to-day it is £260,000,000, and it is steadily growing, though there has been no great war, such as increased the British national debt from £635,000,000 in 1899 to £798,000,000 in 1903. Germany has, in faot,|been living on her capital, and the whole community have been losing money at an enormous rata in order to recompense by means of “bounties’ those who were striving to injure British trade.

THE protective system always injures the country that adopts it, and by doing so wilfully '.shuts out the services of others who are very willing to give them at lower rates. The strain on the German Treasury has now become heavy, and to meet the interest on the enormous debt which has been piled up in less than a third of a century the Minister of Finance is seeking to impose new and higher taxes. That these will he heavily oppressive may be gathered from the fact that those who earn or receive incomes ‘of £350 will be called upon to pay income tax of £lO 10s per annum, and those receiving £1525 a year will have to pay tax amounting to £3Bl ss. It is also proposed to restrict the legal power of bequeathing property by will, so that the State may annex a portion of accumulated wealth to enable it to benefit its finances which have been depleted through the working of the protective system as well as by wasteful expenditure on military and naval forces.

THERE are, of course, many Germans who realise that the policy followed has been injurious, A leading German journal points out that “England, whose policy is Free Trade, has an enormous surplus every year, aud pays off her national debt at such a rate that, under the present circumstances, it will be no more in 1909 than it was in 1889. On the other hand, it appears that Protectionist countries, such as Germany, the United States. Russia, and France, can hardly balance their accounts. It is, therefore, quite palpable that no lasting reform of our Imperial finances is possible until we adopt Free Trade principles, at least to some extent. We must relieve our industrial population from the burden of taxation on the absolute necessaries of life.” The advantage which a system of free imports confers upon a country is defined thus by another leading journal of Berlin England enjoys a great advantage in buying food products without the increased expense caused by tariff bars, thus making living cheaper in England. This economy eventually finds its way into the cosc of manufacturing, and helps the British manufacturer to undersell the German in the markets of the Jworld.” As an instance of the advantage free imports give, it may be mentioned that Great Britain can build ships about twenty per cent, cheaper than Germany can, because the raw materials required to be imported are admitted duty free, and because of free import of food. The Germans, on the other hand, have to pay high duties on raw imports and half-finished products. Tne Dusseldorf Chamber of Commerce recently pretested that in the rolled wire trade English competition asserts itself “because German works supply the English with the necessary material at such cheap rates that the Englishman can produce wire more cheaply.” How is it then, it may bo asked, that German trade has increased so greatly during recent years? The answer is |in a large measure supplied by the fact that it is now necessary to impose additional taxation. Manufacturing industries have been artificially fostered at the expense of the general taxpayer, but the latter can no longer afford the assistance. Tariff reformers should put these questions to themselves: Why, if Protection is better than Free Trade, has British trade been able, as a whole, to more than hold its own in the world’s markets against Germany? Why, considering of living and the general standard of comfort among the working classes, are British workmen hotter off than those of Germany? And why, if Protection is a bettor material policy than Free Trade, is

Great Britain able to steadily reduce its national debt, in spite of an expensive war, while Germany’s debt is increasing at such a rate as to brake drastic new taxation proposals necessary? If they can give convincing replies to these questions they may be justified in continuing their campaign, otherwise they should -let well alone. The facts recorded in the foregoing should also be studied by New Zealanders.

IN the matter of insurance against miners’ complaint Sir Joseph Ward has again surrendered to the demands of the Labour Party by deciding that the Government Accident Insurance Department shall accept the risks under the new Act. Only the other day Mr Millar stated that it would be absurd *for Government to undertake the liability as it would practically mean giving a blank cheque to those suffering from the disease. A little more pressure has been applied and the weak man at the head of affairs has endeavoured to placate the miners by giving them the right to draw upon the funds provided by the long-suffering taxpayers; The State is being compelled by those who have been entrusted with the management of its affairs to accept an unknown and possibly very heavy liability which the prudent insurance companies, whose experience has taught them caution, decline to undertake. But for the desire of politicians to retain place, pay, and power, this would not be done —and it is being done at the expense of the taxpayers.