The Press. SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 1891.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7757, 10 January 1891, Page 4

The Press. SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 1891.

Wβ have been asked to explain how we arrive at the cooolusiou, stated in yesterday's issue, that the disinclination of certain workmen to the introduction of new machinery in some of our local industries acts injuriously upon the workmen themselves. It ia pointed put to us that machinery displaces so many workmen and thus deprives them of the wages which would otherwise have been paid for manual labor. We thought we stated the position clearly in yesterday's issue. Our contention was that the hostility of some workmen to some kinds of new machinery resulted in the nonproduction of certain classes of commodities altogether. The case wo were arguing was this : There are, let us say, some classes of boots and shoes which with the use of the latest machinery, could be produced in the colony, and this would give employment to so. many additional operatives at the current rate of wages. Unless the newest machinery is used that particular form of manufacturing cannot be undertaken, and none are employed at all. It is. true,: perhaps, that the limit of production would be easily reached, and beyond that point there would be no profitable market for the manufactured article. This is undoubtedly the case here, and, indeed, in any of the colonies. A tariff which operates in ft protective direction cannot give the producer the command of thie markets of the world. If he attempts to compete in the free ports he must necessarily sell at a loss. All that a protective tariff can do is to give him the control of the local market, and even then he can only sell at a profit in the event of no undue competition arising between rival manufacturers. The moment excessive rivalry takes place his difficulties commence. He endeavors to cheapen production, and the temptation to reduce wages arises. The doctrine so vigorously preacked at one time by protectioniata that) the price of commodities is not raised under the system is now seldom beard. The more reasonable advocates of that policy frankly admit that prices must be raised by the high duties, but they urge that it is well for the country to pay the increased tax for the sake of the employment given. We do m not for a moment agree that this'is a sound view of the position, but there ie no occasion for raising the general question tinder existing circumstances. Our objecb is to show that the attitude understood to be taken by workmen in connection with certain local industries is a mistaken oae from their own point of view. Our aim should be to see as large a> number of people employed as possible, and, therefore, the hostility- to -the newest methods of manufacture must be regarded as short-sighted on the part of the objectors.

A better illustration of what w#

mean will be found in the nse of reaper and binder maohinery in harvestmg operations. Suppose for a moment it had been in the power of the employed to prevent the use of that'class of machinery in tjiie colony, what would have been the. result ? Would onr farmers have continued to grow wheat and save it by the old methods? It would have been quite impossible for them to do so. Aβ far as grain growing is concerned, the whole country would have gone out of cultivation. Fewer persons would have been employed than is the case at present, while the productive power of the country would have been greatly diminished. It is even doubtful if our farmers could have afforded to grow enough grain for local consumption, and we should probably have had to import our own food. Here we have an illustration of the unwisdom of attempting to resist the introduction of the best appliances for cheapeaing production. The end sought to be obtained would not be realised. No increased employment would be secured, while the exports of the colony would be largely diminished. The above theory, and similar ones recently discuesed in these columns, are based on the assumption that the interests of the employers .and the employed are antagonistic. All through the labor trouble it was assumed on the part of the strikers that if they oould only bring the employers to their knees, they would have obtained some great advantage. The methods adopted in order to reach that end meant the destruction of a certain amount of capital or wealth, and to some extent that object was secured. The strike was attended with not a little destruotioa of wealth, and had it been successful the destruction would have been enormously greater. The attempt was all the more deplorable when it is remembered that there was no demand for an increase of wages. It was admitted that those generally paid were reasonable, and represented a fair share—it might be truly said a large share—of the profits of industry. Now, it oannot be too often insisted on that it is out of realised wealth that the wages found is derived. It may be perfectly true, as tuo text books lay down, that the production of every species of wealth requires the application of man's labor. This labor, acting on the forces of nature, makes the materials derived from tue earth in various forms fit for the daily wants of civilised life. But the reeulte of that labor are j not immediately available, and hence, the need* of a fund from, which, wages may be paid. Alii this, of course, is very elementary political economy, but the principles we have laid down are, we are afraid, too frequently overlooked by those immediately concerned. Hence the demand for such tilings as progressive taxation and similar proposals, all tending to discourage saving and enterprise. Those who save and succeed in saving largely are the special objects of hostility, far more than those who spend freely, even in luxuries. Here again we come upon one of those fallacies which are very commonly entertained in the popular mind. It ia the man who saves who is looked upon as an enemy of progress, and the man who spends freely, even on luxury, who ia looked upon as discharging'his duty to his fellows. This we contend is an entirely fallacious view to take. The money saved by a miser may not be employed by himself, but as a rule it is he d by a Bank or soma similar institution and appropriated to reproductive purposes. The larger the savings of the people are the greater will be the fund out of which the laborers are paid their wages. This is the strongest argument which can be adduced against all schemes of vindictive taxation. They destroy capital, and, by so doing, reduce the wages fund and retard the progress of the country.