A PROFESSOR ON LABOUR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10303, 22 March 1894, Page 4

A PROFESSOR ON LABOUR.

A Christchurch gentleman, described by the Liberty Review as “ Professor O. T. J, Alpera, late of the New Zealand University,”

has contributed to that journal what the critics call “a very interesting article” on the labour question in New Zealand. The Professor has made himself, as he always does, very entertaining, bat the interest of his article certainly does sot arise from its accuracy. Here is the wellturned but slightly extravagant passage with which he introduces his subject:- “ New Zealand,” ho writes, “ enjoys at the present time the distinction of being the political laboratory of the world. Every possible experiment in legislation and Government —from labour lords to advertising on postage stamps—is being tested on its small but versatile population; and, if its investigations are inspired rather by the extravagant dreams of the alchemist than by the dry light of science, this but lends piquancy to the situation. The circumetances of the colony are in many respects favourable to the conduct of the inquiry. It has no stable political traditions, no stereotyped party ‘lines;’ the relations of capital and labour have not for some years been obscured by any serious or violent conflict, and the failure of the quixotic maritime strike has, for the time at least, discredited the argument of the brickbat. Every section of the community possesses the most ample political powers, and every class of it, from printers’ devils and lamplighters to * leisured gentlemen’ and merino wool ‘ squatters,’ has its representatives in both Houses of Legislature.” No one can take serious exception to this. There is a familiar ring about the language which excites the suspicion that we have read the same sort of thing somewhere before; but so far the Professor seems to have set down nought in malice. He is, however, scarcely so happy when he ventures to discuss the details of his subject. His assertion that the temper of the labourer is hostile to property is, to say the least of it, very wide of the truth. The labourer of New Zealand, who is painted by the Professor—again with some extravagance —as a thoroughly well-to-do person, realises, perhaps more fully than anyone else, how closely his own interests arc bound up with the interests of property. Mr Alpers, looking at things from his professorial chair, has either mistaken a warm and natural regard for a bitter and ridiculous hostility or failed to distinguish between property and monopoly.

But it is when the versatile Professor comes to discuss the practical politics of the day that he finds himself hopelessly beyond his depth. He cannot, he declares, understand why the mess of working men who constitute the Labour Party should prefer the Land and Income tax to the Property tax. They contribute to neither, and might surely leave the matter to wiser and more interested heads. He will probably be surprised to learn that rather more than two thousand members of the class to which ho refers were relieved of taxation altogether .by the change in the incidence. But that is not the point. The Labour Party was not moved by concern for its own pocket; it sought to obtain justice for the property towards which it is suspected of feeling so much hostility. Its objects were not, of course, solely philanthropic. It realised that hy relieving property of taxation it would increase its power to employ labour. That property has suffered from untoward circumstances—the decline in the price of our staple products and the Australian financial crisis—and baa failed to achieve all that was expected of it, are clearly no faults of the Labour Party. Our Professor styles the “ unearned increment” the working man’s beta noir, and suggests that in face of the “ shrinkage in land values” the phrase should be changed to " undeserved decrement.” Ho does not pursue the question further, but if he had been particularly anxious to protect the credit of the colony he might have explained that the shrinkage in land values, the “undeserved decrement,” as he calls it, is largely due, paradoxical as it may seem, to the facilities provided for land cettloment. The Government’s land policy has naturally lessened the competition for private property. It may be very unfortunate for the owners, but it is very beneficial to the mass of the people.

labour AND PROPERTY,

It is not worth while* per* baps, to take Mr Alpers ancti the Liberty Review seriously' bat here is another extract from the Professor’s article, which will give a very good idea of the sort of stuff concerning this colony that is occasionally served up to, English readers. “ It is claimed/’ the Professor writes, referring to the co-operative ‘public works scheme, “that, while the men makeexcellent wages, the work coats the Government no more than it would if let out by tender tp contractors in the ordinary way. Theofficials are expected to report to thi effect; and they report accordingly. If they fail to seethe matter in that lights are unwise enough to be * candid/ they can easily be ‘ transferred/ I reCol \ £ visited the west coast of this island, and had some opportunity of studying the effects of the co-operative system as applied to road making on the West Coast Eoad. I found the wages made by some of the men are considerably higher than private employers could afford to give- the majority were, nevertheless dissatisfied because the system is a kind of compulsom Socialism. The men do not form theuf own gangs, but are grouped by the officials who take care to yoke the strong and able with the weal: and indolent. They then share and share alike, and the strong and able object. The general opinion of the settlers on the west coast, and of several employers of labour, engineers and other experts whose opinions I sought, seems to he that the system is extravagantly expensive, that it seriously disturbsthe labour market by encouraging an influx of surplus labour from the less prosperous Australian colonies, and that, so far from solving the unemployed problem, it increases its difficulties enormously.” Comment is unnecessary. The “ officials ” have answered for themselves, and people who want to find the source of the Professor’s information—* acquired during that visit to the West Coast—should turn to the Hansard reports of Opposition speeches in the House of Eepresentatives. Those who are interested in the refutation have the public records at their disposal.

PATRIOTISM AND CO-OPEBATION.