The Press Tuesday, November 8, 1921. Manufacturers and the Tariff.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17297, 8 November 1921, Page 6

The Press Tuesday, November 8, 1921. Manufacturers and the Tariff.

The attitude of some of the manufaetareta towards the Government's tariff proposals is a little puzeling, for more than one reason. What that attitude is was made clear by the president of the Industrial Corporation of New Zealand, who, as we noted yesterday, declared that he was "stupefied" by the Government's failure to carry out its promise, or what 'the president alleged was its promise, to bring in a good high Protective tariff. A Wellington paper printed* on Saturday a of the opinions collected from those who have arranged the industries' exhibition in Wellington, and we gather from, this that the general opinion was that "the tariff meant "that the evidence taken by the Tariff "Commission in the principal centres " had been scrapped. It was felt that " manufacturers hod merely wasted "their time, and the Government had "wasted public money on the Tariff "Commission." Other speakers are reported to have said that their firms have been "practically served with no- " tice to quit," and to have complained bitterly that the tariff was evidence of a "farmers' dictatorship." One disappointed manufacturer is quoted mb saying: '<We relied on the merit of "our cause, but the secret lobbying "of the farmer* has beaten us." As ire have said, this attitude, and these expressions, are not a little surprising. In the first place, the leading local advocates of stringent tariff Protection were not so long ago declaring their perfect willingness to accept the result of the Tariff Commission's investigations- In the second place, it will be difficult to obtain any general support

for the theory that any Tariff Commission which does not recommend a skyscraper tariff is a waste of public money, and we cannot understand the point of view of those who hold that it Commission of Enquiry is useless which does not arrive at agreement with them. In the third place, the "secret lobbying of the farmers" is so completely a fijrment of the Protectionist imagination that we are at a loss to know what the less prudent of tho manufacturers expect to gain by thus declaring war unan the rural community. Fourthly, it is bewildering to Hear that the tariff, wnieh tak?s away none of the protection hitherto afforded to secondary industries, is a dcat.i blow to some of them. If tho tariff | amounts to a. -'notirr: to quit." it '•' that the industries affected have 1 ><•;:• :i able i<> ;:o on for so many years under such notice. It .seems to us tluit tho outcry in some quarters ; s due !c\-:s to any real belief that Uv: secondary indu-tries are in danger than to the disappointment of hopes oncourn£?'.l. without warrant, by oversanguine e:it!:u ;:ast.>. Tho Protectionists themselves have furnished the strongest ground upon which one may baso it confident belief that it is nonsense to talk of industries receiving "notice- to quit." The excellent exhibition in Wellington is evidence or tho ability of our manufacturers to produce increasingly good articles under the old tariff. The campaign literature of tho Protectionists is full of figures showing the great growth of our secondary industries. The only substantial grievance of the local manufacturer has reference, not to the tariff, but to the existence of a prejudice against New Zealand-made goods. This prejudice, as we have for some time been pointing out, is without justification, and it would soon disappear if the manufacturers turned in the direction of educating the public tho energy they have displayed in campaigning for higher duties on imported articles.' The Payment of Members. It is doubtless owing to the general expectation that the salaries of members of Parliament will be reduced that two or three correspondents have expressed a desire to know something r»i the history of the payment of members. Prior to 1884 the honoraria of members were fixed, under regulations dtealing with the subject, by resolution arrived at each session. Sir Julius Vogel, in moving the second reading, on September 19th, 1884, of the Parliamentary Honorarium and Privileges Bill (which afterwards became law), stated that the intention was to embody the then existing regulations in the form of a Bill, instead of adopting resolutions from session to session, "involving discussions which " cannot fail to be disagreeable to hon- " olirable members." . The Act of 1884 did not differentiate between the payments to members of the Legislative Council «nd the payments to members of the House of Representatives: it provided for the payment "to every " member residing at a distance ex- " ceeding three miles in a direct line "from the building" in which Parliament was 6Ummansd to sit, of £2lO for every session; and, in respect of those residing within three miles of Parliament House, of' £l4O per session-; in the event of two sessions being held in the same year, half the above amounts to be payable. In 1892 the law was amended to provide for the payment to each member of the Legislative Council of £l5O per annum, and of each member of the House of Representatives of £240 per annum. This waa amended in 1901 to provide for salaries of £2OO and £3OO respectively. By the Civil List Act, 1920, section 17, the honorarium of each member of the Legislative Council was fixed at £350 per annum, and of each member of the House of Representatives at £SOO per annum. In 1882 the Hon. C. J. Pharasyn, M.L.C, on, two occasions . submitted motions expressing the opinion of the Legislative Council, that "the payment "of big honorariums to its members " should cease after the present session." When moved on July 27th the motion was disposed of by 6 voting that the motion be put and 25 against. Mr Pharazyn, m moving his motion, stated that two or three years previously the Hon: J. T. Peacock (Christchttrch) hod submitted a similar proposition. On August 10th Mr Pharazyn again moved on the subject, adding to his previous motion a proposal (in the event of the Council becoming an elective body) that membere bo paid at the rate of £1 per day for three months only. The debate which ensued appears to have provided one of the few occasions on which one honourable member of the Onncil came perilously near insulting another. The Hon. "W. H. Nurse (Otago), referring to the mover, quoted the following, which he described as "an old nursery rhyme":— There was an old woman: and what do you think? She lived upon nothing but victuals and drink; And so, through the wonderful state of her diet, This stupid old woman could never keep quiet! Mr Pharaayn's second attempt to abolish payment or Legislative Councillors was - no more successful than his first. One of the arguments with which the oayment of members used to be advocated was that such a reform, as it was called, would break the power of the party purse and sot men wholly free from party ties. "We suppose there may be some people who mourn over the fact that this argument was unsound. . •• Three Per Cent" Immigration. A number of the principal American, papers .seem to be raking over their vocabularies to find words with which to describe fitly the new "3 per cent." immigration law, so called because it limit* immigration to 3 oer cant, of'

the number of people of each nationality already in the United States at the time of the 1910 census, to which reference was made in yesterday's cables. "Stupid," "unworkable," "unjust," "foolish," "asinine and "idiotic," 'oppressive, absurd, and 'illogical," "blundering and in- " humane" are among the flowers of speech hurled at the measure, whidh, it is asserted, inflicts hardships on people who reach the- States expecting I to find a home, "even in some instances "separating families of a nationality "of which tCle quota is filled." It is stated that in the very early hours oi August let—two minutes after midnight, to be exact—two ships which had l)D-:n lying with, steam up off New "iurk, just outside tihe three-mile limit, began a race for the harbour. They each carried large numbers of immigrants from various countries of Europe, and, having ascertained that the July quotas were, full, *.heir captains had waited until the new month began before entering the iharbour. The vessel that Wiin the race, by two minutes, discharged .her immigrants, and these, lining the quotas of several nationalities, there was nothing for those of similar nationality on the losing ship tr. do but to suffer deportation. The same lining happened on .September Ist, but with six ships taking part in the raw to shore. Undev the conditions existing in the Vnited States there was, in theory, no fault to be found with the action of Congress in limiting t&c number of aliens of any particular nationality to be admitted to the States in each month. As recently as the middle of September there were fully three million unemployed in the country, including between 600,000 and 700,000 returned (soldiers. The complaint of an organisation of general contractors that the Government was preventing the immigration to the country of tihe most useful class —the common labourers who came to work in the construction industry—was therefore without warrant. But is does sUm 'hat the restriction on the admission of immigrants ie imposed at the wrong end of the voyage. The numbers should bo kept down to the legal monthly limits at the port of embarkation rather than at that of disembarkation. This would impose a good deal of work upon the American consular service, and would be difficult to carry out, for betwetn, thirty and forty nationalities are represented in the crowds of immigrants who seek a promised land in tftie States. But it should not be impossible, and it should be tried, if only to save the heart-breaking disappointment and tho loßfl of money occasioned by the present system. For not only is no fine or punishment provided for steamship companies which bring more immigrants than can pass througjh the barriers of Ellis Island, but they are not required to refund & rejected immigrant's passage money. Possibly, da one paper suggests, after the companies have been compelled to carry back, at their own expense, many hundreds of the unfortunate surplus, they will begin to cooperate with each other. Canada's plan of eliminating flhe unsuitable immigrant before he becomes an immigrant at all, by requiring that every new arrival shall prove his possession of a sum of money calculated to provide for his needs, and those of his family, for some months, is preferable in every way. to the' liethod adopted by the United States, by whidh the desired object is secured only at the cost of the maximum hardship to the surplus would-be immigrants. The Auckland newspaper which supports the Opposition has invited "The Press" to saj what it thinks of the other Auckland paper's violent attack upon the Government?. Here, we are told, we have a Reform newspaper outdoing even the Opposition critics in the vigour of the language in which it assails the Government and the Budget. | Surely, the Auckland Opposition paper suggests, this is proof enough that the Government is unfit to hold office; and What will "The Press" say about itP As to the subßtance and the general drift of the criticism that has so greatly pleased the Liberals, it is sufficient simply to say that it is just that sort of criticism. But our Liberal friends ought to get it out their heads that the brain-storms of any Auckland newspaper are of much consequence. Nor when they hear really rational and temperate criticisms of the Government coming from a person or newspaper friendly to the Government, should they conclude that Liberal stock is rising. If the Liberals had sometimes, in the day of their prosperity, criticised their Government with, temperance and firmness, their political Btock would not today, perhaps, have been running a good third to the Russian rouble and the German mark. Among tihe important questions which are being discussed by the International Labour Conference at Geneva is that of white-lead poisoning. Thq governing body of the International Labour Office, which consists of the representatives of twelve Governments, six representatives of employers, and six representatives of workers, decided some months ago that tihe subject eJiotdd be discussed. Tho governing body was mainly guided by the report of the Commission on Unhealthy Processes ■which was adopted by the first International Labour Conference held a<j "Washington in 1919. In tihe course of tho report, Dr. T. M. Legge, Senior Medical Inspector of Factories at the Homo Office, who acted as president, expressed the general feeling of the, Commission in pointing out the importance of the subject (the prohibition of the use of white lead in house-painting), and saying how action had already been taken in certain countries and the subject studied in others. A cable message, which we printed yesterday morning stated that the International Conference Commission appointed a medical committee "to ascertain whether medical science was in a position properly to diagnose white-lead poisoning."

As to the dangers involved in the use of white lead in painting, it may be mentioned that the British {Departmental Committee which considered the question in 1914, by a majority of seven ta one. recommended that the im-

portation, manufacture, or sal© of any paint material containing more than 5 per cent, of soluble lend compound should bo prohibited. They indicated that, in their opinion, satisfactory substitutes were available. The Office ot Works had already for seven years prior to 1914 used paints with a non-poisonous zinc basis instead of a white-lend base, and stipulated in all Government contracts which included painting that no paint should lie used containing more than 5 per rent, of soluble lead. In France a law was passed in 1907 prohibiting t'lie uso of white lead in all paintinx operations on buildings, which came into effect after the war. In Austria the use of white-lead paints for interior painting was forbidden in 1!!C9. It will thus be scon that the prohibition of white lend in paint has behind it a solid body of support derived irom expert opinion and Irom practical experitllCl'.