LORD LEVERHULME ON THE VICTIMISATION OF INDUSTRY.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3501, 1 June 1920, Page 7

LORD LEVERHULME ON THE VICTIMISATION OF INDUSTRY.

Some rofreshillg"remarks on the outcry against successful industries were! made by Lord Leverhulme at -.1. dinner 1 of the Sales Managers’ Association on] February 19. In the course of an in-1 vigorating speech, he said that thej sPiTit of to-day in regard to pl'ofi‘.‘.~; was one of cupidity and jealollsy. A, feeling was running through tlleeoull- - the prilllal'_\;' sin of ;1 }y_lsill._lg,,man was‘ success. The man who had thd ability to“c.l'e:l.t.e, develop, organise and produce, who brought a rich stream of products to this country, was considered al 1111111 who inust be specially curbed, checked and controlled. If, new that the war was over, we were going to pa)’ Our war indebt-(-diiess, we should have to pay it by the persistent. efforts of all to build up an enorlllolls home and an ellorlllolls export trade. Taxation of xvealth would inerely mean the takillg of money out of olle pocket and putting it back into another. \Vhat was wanted was illcl'ea.:~:ed‘factories and ill‘cre:lsed output. '.l‘wEi reports hatd been 111ceived of :1. 1111111ber of collllnittees~ de:1li11g with the operatioll of the Profiteerillg Act. 111 one ea.<e——tllat of :1 tllr€aL‘: colllpa.lly——'tlle (tollllllitTe<é reportetl th:lt £250,000 ‘out of 3-:'5,t)i!(l,(J0() were }ll'ofitS made by the eo111p;111_1' in the United Killgdonl——one-twentieth of the whole. What were we w:1s1i11g our {time over? Insteacl ‘of getting ollr teoats off and getting to worl-: to prosduee more goods, we were stopping to tinquire about an .ill<lllstl'y that was lable to sell t111'ea(l so cheaply that. its icolllpetitors we11l(I require 50 per cent. ‘more to 111‘o<l11ce the tl1::':1.1l and sell it 011 tlle British inarket. That profit of £250,000 amoullte(l to 5,000,000 shillillgs. 'l‘llat. divided among 45 million people was about l3_.d per head per :111nu111. Yet. we were wasting {time e.ollsiderillg whether we ought to !}_llly that I—.‘_.(l per head per 11111111111 to tthe men who were snid to hold the §lllollopol_\' of the thread trarle of the sUnited Kingdom. We had a huge Pal'lialllentary machine to inquire whether we were being fleeced—-and it only 111 e-ant 1-Id extra per head per allllulll. The policy of the committee on illdll.s‘try seemed to be to make tßl(i_ti.<ll illdllst.ry prosperous and Suecessl_’ul by liarassing those who built it up and e:lrried it on," by making them feel that Tr was a criminal act to build up a great incltistry. The greatest. disservice we could do the nation was to preach the doctrine that success' was profi“teel'illg. The idea

held in some quarters that it was necessary to decrease wages to bring» down cost. of pl‘ot]ue-tion was wr.ong.§ We needed immense of production to‘. bring down cost amid nmilxtain Wages? Our pl'odueing powCl' was dependelv.t:« upon highsw:lg'es, wand to reduce our; pur(2}l:lsi.ng power would lower the deInuud at the factofies. Mass produe.—l tion would reduce Cost without lower-g ing wages. There should be, said Lord 3 Lcverhulme, no inte]rfel‘ence with thefi enjoyment of the fl'ui”ts of 'lndustl'_VE during the life of their producers.’ Over taxation meant disaster.