Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9384, 2 March 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, MARCH 2,1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

ONE of the most necessary qualifications of a Minister of the Crown is impartiality, and in the discharge of his duties he should always endeavour to act with strict justice. JMr Hogg, the Minister for Labour, has long posed as a'friend of the farmer, and has somehow managed to retain the support of a farming-electorate. But now he is a Minister his socialistic leanings are becoming;still more pronounced, and his antagonism to the land owner is still more marked. The other day a deputation of flaxmill hands waited upon fcim, and put forward arguments that they should receive more money for their work, not because it is of more value than it used to be, not because its market price is higher, but because the price of the article produced is higher than it was some years ago. In other words the flaxmill employees seek, not the fair market* price of what they have to sell—their labour —but a share in the profits. They also practically asked the Minister to prevent the closing of the mills, and thus set him the impossible task of compelling employers to carry on business under conditions which do not leave them a fair profit. The employees evidently do not realise that so long as a business is profitable it will be carried on, but when it becomes unprofitable it will not be continued until conditions improve. There is no sentiment in business, and capital will not continue to suffer loss, any more than workers would or could continue to work at less than a living wage.

IT would have been possible for a capable Minister to prove to these employees that in their own interests and that of the industry they should confer with the employers and agree, if necessary, to accept lower wages than the award, till the depression in the industry has been removed. But instead of doing this, the Minister took the opportunity to attack land owners, practically stigmatising them as robbers, and “aggressors” in connection with this industry. Here are his exact words

as reported in a Wellington contemporary: — “They knew how difficult it was to deal with land-owners, once they had become possessed of the property of the Crown. When land became private property, the control of the State was almost gone, and this was particularly unfortunate in view of the effects that might follow in connection with the labour markets. The land was the mainstay of labour, and, in his opinion, it was a pity that greater care was not taken to reserve land containing valuable mineral or vegetable products in the hands of the State for labour purposes. He would do all he could to have prominence given to the facts and figures that had been laid before him, and he thought that if fjill publicity was given, the aggressors, unless they were very callous, must feel acutely what they were doing. It was for Cabinet to decide whether there should be'an investigation, and, if so, what form it should take.”

THE first sentence, if it means anything, implies that land owners have unfairly become “possessed of the property of the Crown. ’' The facts are ignored that the Grown exacted hard cash from the people who bought the land, that the State is stili levying heavy taxation on the land it sold, and that if the Crown had placed the purchase money at interest—or if the owner of the land had kept his money instead of baying land —it would have amounted to much more than the present value of the land. The effort is made to Ihrow all blame on the men who bought land, and to hold them up as aggressors whenever a labour dispute arises. In this connection we call the attention of freeholders to the 'regret expressed by the Minister that the State has lost complete control of freehold land, If it had control over the land now, it is certain that the holders of it would be despoiled for the benefit of men who have been receiving very high wages—wages too high to allow of successful continuance of the industry.

IT is quite true that royalty charges have increased, but it must not be forgotten that taxation of the land that grows the flax has also been increased, and that the valuations on which the taxation is based are outrageously high, so that the holder must necessarily demand higher royalty to compensate him for greater expenditure. But it is also true that labour is now receiving very much higher remuneration for its services than it did a few years ago. It was admitted by the employees themselves that the labour cost per ton is now about £2 10a more than it was a few years ago.

MINISTERS and Labour Unionists are face to face with the fact that the labour laws are producing disastrous effects, one of which is the paralysing of a great industry which used to give employment at fair wages to a large number. No Parliament can compel either employers or employees to work at a loss, and the millers must certainly close down if they can no longer make fair profit. It is useless for Mr Hogg or anyone else to pretend that improvement can be effected by any action of the Cabinet. But if Parliament repeals some of the labour laws, reverses its fiscal policy, and allows the whole community to once again work under natural conditions, then not only the flax industry, but every other industry which ought to be carried on in this country, would flourish as it has never done before.