Rangitikei Advocate THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9419, 15 April 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THERE seems good reason to believe that the perio.i of depression has nearly passed away. The markets are recovering so far as some of our staple products are concerned, and there is little donbt that the others will soon again be on their old footing. Wool is advancing in price keener competition and greater demand. While there is room for improvement in the market for butter and frozen meat the oubJoolf

for these is hot altogether unpromising. The flak market will undoubtedly onoe again be profitable, when workers realise that awards which 'kill industries are not advantageous to them, and must be altered. The depression, indeed, will&ave done good service, if only ‘by compelling attention to economic laws, by weeding out the less ®t in the commercial world,'and by forcing on the attention of the people pand of the Government the necessity •of economising. Both the body politic and the world of commerce will be the healthier. Throughout the time of stress the values of property have remained much the .same, even though it may be difficult as yet to realise or to raise loans. What is needed now to hasten the coming of more prosperous times is greater confidence in the splendid resources of our country, With its fertile soil, genial climate, and enormous capabilities. With prudent and economical administration and thrift and industry on the part of the people there is nothing to fear in regard to the future of New Zealand.

THE labour laws of this country, assume that the State has the right to regulate the business and operations of any man who invests his capital in commercial or manufacturing enterprise. He is at once made subject to harassing inspection, rigid rules and hide-bound awards regulating his operations with ridiculous regard detail. He is made to feel that the business he has established or the factory into which he has just put.his money is really not his own, but belongs to his employees, and in many instances he is not even allowed to select his employees, but must accept the services of those rjecohrmended by a union. Competition, in the old meaning of the word, has been practically destroyed, together with the stimulus that formerly caused workers to strive to excel.- The lazy and unskilful frown at those who put in better work or manifest greater energy, and, as the inferior are always 'in the majority the effect is to drag all workers down to one dead level. The brand of unionism in this country does noc level np. It has no ideals except that of securing the maximum of pay for the minimum of work. “Labour is prayer’ 5 was the motto of the men of old, the skilled craftsmen whose works stand to this day, and whose handicrafts produced articles of permanent utility and beauty. The present day motto is that “Labour is a curse” and the high priests of the new cult are the Lords of the Lazy,—the leaders of the trades unions.

BY the aid of the policy of restriction, ■which is miscalled! “protection” it has been possible for trades unionism to force up the price' of labour in all the manufacturing industries. Inevitable consequences of this process, of course, have been the reduction in the purchasing power of money, and an increase in the cost of living, so that though the worker receives for his labour a sum which is nominally more it does not purchase so much as it would have done say ten years ago. It is significant too, that the moment an attempt is made to artificially increase wages in any of the primary producing industries, that industry is doomed. Those who have to bear the expense of carrying it on cannot be “protected,” or in other words cannot pass their losses on to the consumer.

THIS leads us to inquire why 4 the should dare to interfere with the conduct of private bnisness? It may be granted that in the interests of the people it should provide that as far as possible the health of workers employed in unhealthy occupations, shall be safeguarded, but all the rest should be left \to the judgment of those engaged in Ithe industries and to the ‘law of supply and demand. If, instead of investing his money in a shop or a factory a man chooses to invest it in land then he can at least avoid interference by the State, except by its demands for rates and taxes. The factory owner must keep bis factory going, but the landowner may please himself whether he crops or grazes' or allows his holding to become a wilderness. He may even resolve not to spend a single penny on its improvement or utilisation, but wait till a purchaser appears who will yield him a profit gn its sale. Why should the man who employs his money in the open be . comparatively free from interference, and the man who employs it within four walls be subject to this and to surveillance by State police? On what moral or politio grounds can the State cla'm the right to interfere with and regulate business or commercial enterprise?