THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1908. A WEAK SPEECH.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9119, 19 June 1908, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1908. A WEAK SPEECH.

Dr Findlay appears to be "the man" of the Government when it comes to making a speech on a knotty problem. The Arbitration Act has lately been criticised to an enormous extent; more vigorously critical, probably, than has ever been the case before, and upon the shoulders of Dr Findlay it has,fallen to act as apologist for the Government. The speech, which the Attorney-General delivered on labour problems in Wellington, last Wednesday evening, may be said to have attracted attention, not so much for the matter that it contained, but on account of the importance of the

subjects touched upon. Broadly, it was an electioneering speech pure and simple, and the figures which the speaker submitted, and the general opinions that he expressed, need not be too seriously considered. "I have not adduced these figures," said Dr Findlay, "to show that the general level of the wages of labour cannot be raised. I think it can." It is here, in our opinion, that one discovers the real intention of the speaker. That intention was, we take it, in view of the general election looming in the distance to placate the Labour Party, or, at any rate, to prevent, as far as possible, a severance between the Liberal and Labour Parties. The Labour Party, by its alliance with the Liberals, never gained very much, and it is beginning to see | pretty clearly to-day that the Govern- j me'nt are likely to make desperate efforts to retain its support. However, to revert to the Attorney-Gen-eral's speech, lack of forcefulness appears to have been the chief-fea-ture of his arguments. For instance —an apparently correct report runs as follows: "Hia proposition was that the Act had not caused an increase of the cost of living of the workers, that is, of the wage-earn-ing class, which it was passed to protect or deal with. It might—and probably did—affect the cost of living of the wealthier sections of the community." Had the Attorney-General contended that the cost of living had not risen in equal proportion with the increase of wages—of those who have had their wages raised—but that the actual cost of living had increased amongst all classes, and that, in many cases, the cost of living had increased while the spending power was consequently lowered, he would have been absolutely correct. Such a statement would have been a mere admission of fact, but, as we have said, the speaker was bent on electioneering and he was going to arrange his facts in his own way. The Attorney-General appears to have entirely overlooked the fact —not altogether unimportant—that the Arbitration Court has only dealt with a comparatively limited number of the mass of the workers of the Dominion. Contemplation of the obvious is advisable in arriving at correct conclusions. Bty way of example, let us ask the casual labourer if the coat of living has increased that is to say, is his spending power as beneficial to himself as it was ten years ago? We think his answer will be "No." It is surely idle to contend—as it seems to us the At-torney-General does—that when the wages have been raised of those who are engaged in trades associated with the necessaries of life, the cost of the articles produced is not increased in price to every purchaser; but, as we have pointed out, this appears to be Dr Findlay's contention, for he says: "It (the Act) might —and probably did—affect the cost of living of the wealthier sections of the community."