The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1889. THE FOUR MILLIONS A YEAR.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1902, 11 June 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1889. THE FOUR MILLIONS A YEAR.

The following paragraph has been going the rounds of the papers:— “Duriag the discussion on Mr Westgarth’s paper on Australian finance, read before the Colonial Institute, Mr Billinghurst, the manager of the London and Westminster Bank, addressed a few words of warning to the colonies on the subject of their borrowings. He said that the interest which had to be provided to pay those who had advanced the £160,000,000 of Australasia’s public debt amounted to £10,000,000 per annum. So far the pressure of it had not been felt, because it had not been necssaary to transmit the money from the colonies to this country, inasmuch as, through the frequent borrowings of the different colonies, there were generally large sums to their credit at the London banka, which sufficed to pay this interest; but the time must come when the borrowings would cease, and then the £10,000,000 would have to be sent from the colonies. This could only be done by transmitting their produce. According to their published returns, the exports from Australasia fell short of the imports, and he did not see, therefore, how produce could be provided sufficient to cover tho annual sum of 10 millions sterling.” Six years ago we drew attention to this fact, and now, when so high an authority endorses our views, it is time, we think, that we were listened to. It will he remembered that about six years ago we pointed out thatthia colony was going to the bad at the rate of £4,000,000 a year. We included in this the interest on our public debt, the balance of trade against us, the interest on private indebtedness, incomes of absentees, dividends drawn by foreign shareholders, etc., etc., and thus made up the £4,000,000 a year. Of course, we only dealt with this colony, but Mr Billinghurst dealt with all the Australian colonies. Taking count only of the interest on their public debt, he came to the conclusion that a day of reckoning is in store for them sooner or later. He, however, does not seem to see but half the danger. He does not seem to know that the interest on pablic indebtedness constitutes the, smallest portion of the amount or money we have to provide annually to pay away to foreigners, but no doubt if he had seen it he would regard the position as still more serious. Eaoognising these facts, six years ago, we drew attention to them, and now, backed up by an authority like Mr Billinghurst, we feel emboldened to renew the warning. Lately, of course, the position of this colony has greatly improved. Our exports have exceeded our imports considerably, and this is greatly in our favor, but there is room for improvement yet. Our exports must become still much larger before they will be sufficient to pay the £4,000,000 a year we require to balance our account in London. Much as some people were opposed to Protection, there can be no doubt but that a great deal of the diminution in our imports is due to the increase in the Customs duties. We do not admit that the present is a protective tariff —far from it—but it has a tendency that way, and it has resulted in many of the goods hitherto imported being manufactured locally. Most people are glad that our imports are decreasing, and most people will, wo believe, admit that that such a result is due to the little) Protection which has been given to our own industries. Why, then, should we not give Protection to local industries, and still further lessen imports, since most people think to do r s# is good for us ? But we shall not pursue that question further just now. Eather let us inquire to whom we are indebted for the tariff which has wrought the change. To Sir Harry Atkinson? Certainly not! In 1885 the Stout-Vogel Government introduced a similar tariff, and Sir Harry Atkinson voted for its rejection. In 1887 the same Government reintroduced it, and it was, on the motion of Sir Harry Atkinson, thrown out. In 1888 Sir Harry introduced it, and it was the followers of Sir Eobert Stout who not only helped , him to carry it, but modified it into a more protective shape. It is, therefore, to the StoutYogel Government we owe the protective part of the tariff, and to Sir Harry Atkinson the taxing part. Indeed, if wo were to look back calmly now, and examine the policy of the Stout-Yogel Ministry, we feel certain that any reasonable being will find in it the only means of meeting this liability of £4,000,000. First; They were introducing men with capital into the colony. If we remember i rightly, the capital brought by immigrants introduced by them during their last year of office was close on £IOO,OOO. These capitalists were settled on land, and were increasing production. Secondly: They were thinning the cities of the unemployed and settling them on the land, and these people were increasing production. Thirdly: They tried to give Protection to local industries so as to still further increase production and diminish imports. Fourthly: They proposed to buy and cut up large estates so as to settle more people on them, and still further increase production. Fifthly: They attempted to exenjpt frpm taxation agricultural implements and improvements tp the value of £3OOO, so as to "lighten burden, pn farmers, and help them to

produce more out of their land. Thus every effort was put forth by the Stout-Yogel Ministry to increase production and develops the resources of the colony. They were thrown out of office, and their successors stopped introducing immigrants with capital, stopped settling the unemployed on the land, increased the burden of taxation on the farmer by 25 per cent., nullified the protective tendency of the tariff by taxing goods which ought to be allowed in free, commenced disposing of land worth £2 an acre for 10s an acre, and sold it to men who owned large areas of land already, and finally drove thousands who had capital out of the colony. We ask any unprejudiced man now to say which policy was most likely to enable us to pay the £4,000,000 a year? SWEATING SYSTEM. Ok last Friday evening a crowded meeting was held in Dunedin to receive the report of the committee appointed to enquire into the “ sweating system.” The report, supplemented by an able speech by the Eev. Eutherford Waddell, was to the effect that the committee had met weekly, and that they had tried to get the employers of labor to agree to pay their employees in accordance with a schedule of prices. All the smaller employers agreed to this, but Messrs Boss and Glendining; Bing, Harris and Co.; Sargood, Son,andEwen, and Butterworth Brothers refused, and so the committee decided that there was nothing left fer them to do but to appeal to the legislature to interfere, and to organise the workers theminto a union similar to that existing in Victoria. They therefore recommend the appointment of a committee to secure these ends. The Eev. Mr Waddell, who was deputed by the committee to speak in introducing the report, animadverted severely on the action of the large and eminently respectable warehousemen, whom he thought would haye been above haggling over a halfpenny in the price of making a shirt. He said—- “ I charge these warehousemen again with indirectly sharing in the gains of this iniquitous system of sweating. If it continues in our midst, I say these warehousemen will morally occupy a position almost, if not altogether, analogous to the receiver of stolen goods. (Applause).” Sir ''Robert Stout moved—“‘That the Government be respectfully requested to appoint a commission to inquire into the sweating system in this and the other towns of the colony, and report as to the best method of dealing with the whole subject.’—(Applause).” He said when he left the old country he had hoped he had heard the last of the miseries of the poor, but it seemed they were getting into the same state here. It was the fault of the working men themselves. The warehousemen taught them a lessen in the way they stood up for their own interests. He believed it was quite possible to govern the country so that there would be no poverty, hut when any man made any new suggestion he would be cried down as a faddist. The motion was seconded by Dr Fitchett and carried. Mr Maitland moved—” That efforts be made now to form a union of the tailoresses, shirt machinists, finishers, and pressers, such union to be called ‘ The Tailoresses’ Union of New Zealand.’ ” This being seconded by Mr Fish, M.H.E., it was carried, and subsequently a vote of thanks te the Otago Daily Times for having exposed the system was agreed to. In this two things are apparent — First, that moral suasion can never have any effect in the settlement of the dispute between capital and labor ; Secondly, that the wealthier the man is the less he sympathises with the miseries and poverty of the poor. The committee of Dunedin were able to reason with the smaller employers of labor, but when they came to deal with the mighty princes of trade it was altogether a different thing. The princes felt very little sympathy for the wretched creatures whose lives had been wasted to increase the princely profits. In this the poor ought to find a lesson, as Sir Robert Stout said, but it is impossible to teach the poor lessons, and hence the whole trouble. If the poor of this colony only combined together their condition would be altogether different, but they will not, and therefore they have oaly themselves to blame.