Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9423, 20 April 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE resignation of Mr E. H. Orabb, Chairman of the Kimbolton Branch of the Farmers’ Union, is a matter for regret, because it is desirable that all intelligent landholders should stand shoulder to shoulder in the battle for the furtherance of their interests, which are really the interests of the whole country. For if the man" on the land is prosperous the whole population of the Dominion will share his good fortune, while—if owing to a fall in the value of exports, the pressure of inequitable taxation, or an unsatisfactory form of laud tenure, the men on the land find it difficult to meet their liabilities —the whole country will suffer with them, labour will be unemployed, and tradesmen will find their stocks remaining on the shelves unsold. Mr Orabb’fi excuse for separating himself from his fellows who’belong to the Farmers’ Union is that it has become a political organisation identified wih the Opposition Party. From the point of view of faithful henchmen of Sir Joseph Ward, who are ready to follow him wherever he pleads, there may be some justification for this view. But neither the planks of the platform of the Farmers’ Union nor the opinions of its leaders have changed since its foundation, and it has always been the desire of the members of the Union to obtain adequate representation in . Parliament for their views. So long as both parties supported the freehold tenure it mattered little to farmers which party their members belonged to, bnt'wljen Sir Joseph Ward selected an anti-freehold Cabinet, including members like MoNab, Fowlds and Hogg, it became evident to farmers that it was useless to elect members pledged to Sir Joseph Ward if they wished the freehold tenure to be maintained. Certain members of the Union endeavoured to capture the Union for tbe present Prime Minister’s Party, but failed in the attempt, and it is childish of them to complain that the Union does not trim its sails to suit the breeze which Sir Joseph Ward at any moment thinks will waft him to office. The party that honestly advocates the, freehold will secure the support of the Union and to this extent the Farmers’ Union is a political organisation. The party in power at present in the opinion of ninety-nine out of every hundred farmers has not this qualification and therefore has not their support.

WHEN the early Colonists arrived in this country they set to work to make it a land of liberty. They were people who loved freedom and who desired to prevent |any of the irksome restrictions of the Old Land being applied in the New Land. When they obtained the right of self-gov-ernment their leaders strove to name laws which, while making all proper provision for the preservation of law and order, would leave the individual as free as possible to work out his own destiny, and man> age his own affairs. Though but a short time has elapsed since the pioneers ceased to rule and guide, the position has entirely changed, and there is now less liberty in this land than in any other which possesses representative government. It is almost impossible for an individual to enter into any undertaking or enterprise without finding himself shackled by some legislative {enactment, and subject to espionage and interference of Government officials. It might have been expected by theorists that Democratic Government would conduce to the freedom of the people, but the very reverse been the case. This may be accounted for partly by the fact that for some years past Democracy has not ruled. The real rulers have been the trades unionists, and the professional politicians have beln their pliant tools. The liberties of the people have been assailed in almost every direction, and it is time they called a halt to the present policy and insisted on the restoration of the liberty of which they have been robbed.

UNDER the existing system by which labour matters are “regulated”—sometimes with the effect of destroying the industry they apply to —the town agitators have far too much influence on the industries carried on in the country districts, and an amendment of the Act to compel them to confine their mischievous work to their own gaphere, seems urgently necessary. An ’ instance of their unwarrantable interference has been afforded by the situation in the flax milling industry. That industry must certainly disappear unless the millers have a fair chance of making a fair profit, and that chance ,1s not afforded under the existing award, and in the present low state of the hemp market. To get over the difficulty audAnsure the continuance of the industry the millers propose to establish the contract system, which thev contend they have a right to do under the terms of the award. They rightly consider that men who were willing to exert themselves would be glad to take contracts for work'or supply, as they would know what price would pay them, and they need not do the work unless they get their price. But it would seem that there are

some who do not want tbe work, so 4 much as the pay, and they would prefer the old system under which their recompense depended not on what they did, hut on how long,they dawdled or shirked. They allege that the proposal amounts to a ‘Mock* out”, and now the city agitators again come on the scene. Instead of aiding both sides to get over a difficulty by means of what appears to be a perfectly fair arrangement—which proposes to pay a man what he himself considers to be the value of his work—the Wellington Trades .Council has decided ‘‘to support in every way any members of the Flax Employees Union who may be looked out owing to refusal to accept the contract system proposed to be introduced into the flasmills. ” Evidently the city agitators prefer that the mills sfaould.be closed down, rather than that the cherished principle of their trades-unionism—to do the minimum of work for the maximum pay—should be imperilled. But, of course, if the employers proposal is not agreed to, most of the mills will have to be closed. Parliament can do many things, but neither it nor the Arbitration Gourt can compel the working of industries when the post of their product amounts to more than it will realise in the market.