THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8291, 20 November 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1906.

As New Zealand is regarded as an object uf curiosity by many politicians living in outside countries, as a unique specimen of legislators' experiments, we are treated from time to time to the "impressions" of various touring politicians, and others who may be numbered among the great ones of the earth. The latest political savant to unburden him pelf of his impressions is Mr Ramsay Maodonald, Secretary of the English Labour Committee in the Old Country. Mr Macdonald baß evidently beeu surprised if not startled. He seems to hold the opinion that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and iu an apparently nervous manner he delivers himself of his impression that the country requires very careful management. Mr Maodonald, no doubt, saw everything sbat ho wanted to see when he was in this country, and no doubt he was told many things both true and untrue, but be is a politician, he holds a seat In the Imperial Parliament as a Labour representative, and one might have hoped, and hoped with reason, that Mr Maodonald was an authority on Labour questions, one iu whose opinions it would have been possible to have placed a gcod deal of belief. At any rate, one would have been justified in thinking that Mr Maodonald's opinions would be worth respecting, but, as we have said, his impressions are disappointing, and we go further

and eay that bis impressions, bis views, his opinions, or whatever ho are of a "cheap jack" variety. They are more suited to win popularity with tbe dress of London unemployed at a peoples' meeting iu Hyde Park, than to be respected by an intelligent and educated and enlightened democracy such as the people of New Zealand are. ***** Mr Maodonald's impressions disclose, among other things, a rabid socialism taint in his political purview. Hia impressions of the effect and the value of arbitration to the workers in this country certainly show that when here he either did not study tbe arbitration question at all, or if he did he "dipped" into] it in a far from intelligent way. Mr Maodonald told his Melbourne interviewer that the cost of living In New Zealand had gone up out of all proportion with the wages*, that is to say, the workers of tbe oolony are to-day in reality receiving leas wages than when the arbitration law came into operation. The Arbitration Court was established to deal mth unscrupulous employers moie than with anyone else. The general effect of the Act has been good, its operations hava been satisfactory, and it is an extraordinarily inabourato, and altogether false, statement; to eay that the cost of living has "gone up but of all proportion to tbe wages." Take any young man of the artisan classes—a journeyman, let us say. His wages today [are higher than they were ten years ago. If ho is a single man, living apart from his people, that is in a'place where he has to pay for his board and lodging, he has to pay, if anything, little more than he would bavs paid ten years ,ogo. We do not deny that the cost of has increased, but that cost is greatest, in the case of family men, and the cause of tbe in or ease is the exorbitant rents that have to be paid in congested centres. A single instance should serve to illustrate the contention. In 1891 the capital value of Wellington was £6,069,295, and to-day, according to the last returns, tbe capital value is stated to be £17,629,065. The unimproved value in 1891 was £3,696,611, and to day it is £10,975,151. If Mr Maodonald had studied tbe statistics of this oolony relating to the last ten or fifteen years bis impressions might have been worth reading. ***** However, to refer to another point which Mr Maodonald'a impressions bring into one's mind: the Premier and Mr McNab are scarcely likely to thank Mr Maodonald for his absolute candour in completely recognising tbe true objeofc of the Land Bill. According to our cable news of yosterday, Mr Maodonald is reported to h&va said ,thafc "if New Zealand was going to carry on progressive legislutidri, tbe freehold system of land would require to be , knoaked on the head, for the freeholders were going to skim off tbe, cream of *ho colony. ... In this connection Mr MaNali's land policy came in. With the elimination of the freeholder, that policy, if car ried out, would eventually reduce the cost of living, and correspond- | ingly inorease the purchasing power of money.'' Wo hßva repeatedly pointed out that the underlying principle of the Bill is that of land nationalisation. The fact is so obvious that it must be recognised by even the most casual political thinker. The Premier and Mr McNab, in the faoa of their Land Bill, have aotually denied that it is antifreehold, and they themselves have deolared that they are freeholders. Mr Macdonald'a candid references to tbe Land Bill shows bow he recognised it, and the impressions that he has of tbe Land Bill is undoubtedly correct; in fact, it seems to be tbe only correct impression that Mr Maodonald has concerning this countiy.

The anti freehold mania of the Government i 3 likely to pre?e a serious matter to farmers, and not only to the pastoral and agricultural classes but to tbe colony as a whole, in the oast) of agricultural lands tt |ia bsyond question that so far as both the State and tbe ocoupiers of land ar« concerned tbo best tenure that can be given is the most permanent that ibis possible to give, and the most permanent of all tenures is the freehold tenure. In the occupation of oity land there is not the same necessity, because the welfare of tbo State is not so largely involved, that the land should be held in fee simple. We have given tbe figures relating to the tremendous inorease in the capital value of, Wellington during the last few years, and everyone Knows, even if all will not admit it, thatthe inoreased value has been largely brought about by the working classes, and that the inorease in the cost of living has been far greater in the main centres of this oolony than anywhere else. Surely there is work enough for land nationalised in dealing with evils of landlordism, and speculation, in tbe cities of this country? If our legislators are really desirous of passing beneficial legislation they will amend tbo laud laws so that tbo settlers and the

settlers' sons, may be encouraged to acquire the freeholl and to settle upon the Crown lands of the country that are now lying idle, There are millions of asres of waste land in this country, while our well paid legislators, or many of them, are contemplating the destination of the freeholder in this country in order to gratify the abßard views, or rather sentiments, expressed by various Labour agitators in the oitiea. Yet when it name to the praotioal application of land nationalisation in the case of the workmen's homes, when the Trades and Labour Oounoil par ;y discovered that there was no clause in the Aot under which ocoapiers of these Homes could acquire the freehold of their homes, they vehemently insisted that such a olauEe should be inserted, and the following session the late Mr Seddon introduced and passed an amending Bill contain* ing a "freehold clause." Thus we see how "socialistic" most of our socialists are!

Death has once again deprived the Cabinet of a capable Minister, who was iu the midst of arduous undertakings, calculated to be of great benefit to the ooontry. We refer to the lamentable death of the Hon. Colonel Pitt, wbioh emphasises the fact that Ministers in New Zealand are usually over-worked, or, shall we say, over-work themselves. To aver that over-work actually created the malady which caused the de ceased gentleman's demise would not be true, but it is'nevertheless indisputable that for a number of months prior to his death his ministerial duties were of a moat arduous and responsible character and must have militated greatly against any prospect of recovery that there might have been had oircamstanaes been otherwise. There is a great deal of legislation on the Statute Book of the Colony, and much of it is of a very complicated character. It ia obvious, therefore, that while so much of out* legislation is of an experimental nature, and in face of the further fact that there is a great political campaign to be fought in connection with the land question, that the lot of a Minister is by no means eitner a happy or an easy one. Taking into consideration the great increase that there must have been during late years in the Work of administration it would seem tnat the Government would be justified in increasing the number of Ministers in the best interests of both the country and the Cabinet. Too much is expected of Ministers nowadays. Both Messrs Dunoan and Mills were the victims of public opinion, the result of a restlessness, or jdissatisfaotion, brought about most probably by the number of years that the Ministry had been in ofßao. Have their successors, however, proved better men? We believe that the country as a whole, would to-day rather see Mr Dunoan Minister for Lands than Mr McNab. Mr Millar, as Labour Minister, mast—if he really proteats and promotes the interests of Labour, as far as he possibly can,—-have as much to do as can reasonably be expected of any Minister. The Hon. Mr Mills, when he held the portfolio of Customs, although not a brilliant politician, waH certainly a very hardworking Minister and managed his Department satisfactorily. After it is all over one really wonders why he was retired to make room for Mr Millar, It is possible that there now may be a general re arrangement of portfolio*, and, perhaps, an inorease in the number of Ministers. If Mir Mills were to he re-oalled to office it is pretty safe to say that subh a decision would be favourably regarded by the bulk of the Liberal Party. In view of certain events of the last few months the Government may now find it advisable to consider whether it was alto-, gether desirable to bb without the servioes of men who were the colleagues of the late Mr Seddon for a number of years, and who were regarded by him as being capable Ministers.