THE TREASURER AND THE LABOR QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 6815, 1 February 1886, Page 4

THE TREASURER AND THE LABOR QUESTION.

tf The following letter from Sir Julius Vogel has been received by the Trades and Labor Congress : The Secretary N.Z. Labor Congress. D( ar Sir, —I have to thank yon for your letter asking me to attend the meeting of the Trades and Labor Congress and address you on " The labor question : its position as a factor in the State." I regret that at so short a notiee, in my present invalid state, I am unable to accent your invitation, though I should greatly have liked to do so, for the subject has always possessed much interest for me. The limits of a letter not unreasonably extended forbid me giving you my own opinion at a length which would snllicientiy do me justice. Still, I will endeavor to sketch in a condensed form my views on the conditions which labor should enjoy in a new country. The welfare and happiness of a community depend, in my opinion, upon its members being occupied and employed. A community of which a large proportion has not work to do must be an unhappy one. But it will be no le?s unhappy if those who perform the work are not well paid for their labor. The proposition then stands thus : The community is happy whose members are well occupied and well paid for their labor. A community of this kind attains one condition of happiness in a general distribution of wealth. All the Communists' divisions of wealth are, to my mind, hopeless. One condition under which wealth becomes generally distributed is that of well-paid labor which enjoys a surplus over and above the expenses of living. The way is thus open to the employed of to-day becoming the employer of to-morrow. Labor cannot flourish unless there is capital to support it. The wants and means of a community which is without capital arc so small that the demand for labor is attenuated. Labor, to be well paid, requires then the aid of capital; and we are thus brought to the question : What shall be the relation between labor and capital ? Although there is such an intimate union between labor and capital, there !

is get a great deal of antagonistic feeling between them. The union and antagonism nrc easily shown by a familiar example. A factory, we will suppose, is established. The owners, by the use of capital and the employment of labor, make a fortune. They would not have done so without the use of their capital, nor without the labor they required being available. The question, then, arises: Has laboi profited as much as it should have done ? Has it received a fair share of the fortune made? The cry of the imemrloyed in England is that they do not receive a fair portion, or, in other words, that profits have been sufficiently large to have enabled the employers to pay more for labor and retain less on account of capital supplied. If labor is subjected to the universal competition of all climates and countries it is clear that capital must be dominant, and that the condition of well-paid labor, which I have contended is one of the necessary features of a happy community, must be wholly wanting, But an exact balance of power is evidently impossible of long continuance, and we have to face the question of whether it is better for the happiness of a community that capital or labor should have greater political power. If capital is dominant, it is utter nonsense to assert that, more or less, it will not look after what suits it best. It may stop short of positive cruelty ; it may exhibit a great deal of individual kindness and goidhcartedncss; but all the same, whenever it has the power the general tendency will be to seek for capital excessive advantages in the shape of cheap labor and the monopohsiiig of wealth in a few hands. But if labor is dominant it may be said it will be as unreasonable and as hard on capitalists as in the other case capitalists will be on laborers. There is no reason to expect more moderation from one than the other, but self-interest forces moderation on the laboring classes. Capital can better afford to wait than labor, and therein lies the whole secret. If capital is in the ascendant it fixes the rate of wages, and more or less compels their acceptance. If labor is in the ascendant, and demands persistently a higher rate of wages than capitalists can afford to pay, it drives away and " kills the goose that lays the golden eggs." I may be asked what I mean by capital or labor being in the ascendant or dominant. These are examples: The influence of capital may reduce the rate of import duties, and throw thousands of men out of employment to compete with ordinary laborers. Again, it may stop public works, and by doing so increase the number of persons who will be compelled to accept any wages they can obtain. Again, it may confine itself to the pursuit of industries which require little aid from human labor. And, lastly, it may take the most mischievous shape of driving out small capitalists, who, depending on the local market, are confronted with an impoverished people unable to buy. Small farmers, for example, must be ruined if they have to depend on a market 13,000 miles distant. Their support and safeguard is a prosperous artisan class of local consumers. On the other hand, labor in the ascendant may impose many restrictions upon capitalists ; but it may use its power no further than to see that the conditions are maintained that will leave the capital profitable employment, but forbid it from placing unfair exactions on the laboring classes. The tendency to excessively use power is equally likely to follow the dominance of either class; but, as I have pointed out, self-interest most powerfully restrains license on the part of the laboring classes, because if they arc unfair to capital they drive it away, and prevent its introduction from abroad. I know that I am liable to be told that this is not a sufficiently restraining influence, and all I have to say in reply is that it must prove so, unless the world is to become very unhappy. The balance of political power is more or less rapidly everywhere passing into the hands of the laboring classes and small capitalists. Simultaneously these classes are becoming more thoughtful and better educated. Radicalism is being divided into two schools —the Conservative and the unbridled. In my opinion, Conservative Radicalism will carry the day, and employers of labor will find that a sufficiently powerful section of the unemployed will prevent undue advantage being taken of tho larger political power that labor will enjoy. In short, capital restrained from being too exacting should find its best ally in the moderate views of the thoughtful portion of the laboring classes. —I am, etc., Julius Vooel. The Congress decided to ask Sir Julius to use his influence to get Parliament to pass the reforms urged by the Congress.