The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MAY 30, 1910. MANUFACTURERS' TROUBLES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7140, 30 May 1910, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MAY 30, 1910. MANUFACTURERS' TROUBLES

A discussion which, took place on Friday last at a meeting of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce was not without significance at a moment when branches of the Farmers' Union throughout the Dominion have been expressing opinions about taxation and the tariff. The points raised at Christchurch' were whether certain industrial undertakings received a sufficient measure of protection against imports and whether the labour laws retarded the development of these manufacturing enterprises. These questions were raised in the report submitted to the meeting by the acting-president (Mr Marriner). The conclusion he arrived at was that manufacturing industries had not grown as they should when the spending power of the community and the volume of imports were considered, and, in addition, that the absence of finality in the demands of labour exercised a prejudicial effect upou industry by surrounding them with an atmosphere of insecurity. It is not quite clear from what Mr Marriner and some of the other speakers had to say what they think should*be done, though the" general impression left by reading the of the meeting is that the bar-

rier against importations should bo raised still higher and no more labour legislation should bo passed. No argument in lavour ui repealing the present laws was put forward. Indeed, it was deelured by Mr .Marrinc-r that manufacturers would not Him to bee the laws abolished—what they wanted I was a cessation of continual trouble, as if tho law stood where it now is •• a

great impetus would be given to industries-'* Wo don’t know whether our manufacturing friends who subscribe to this opinion believe there is any place in the world whore employers aro free from anxiety concerning demands by workmen. Certainly wo have never beard of such a place any more than of oilo whore the prices of raw materials used in manufacture were not subject to continual fluctuation in price. It is very probable—for our part wo bcliovo it is true—that fears of complications with wage-earners retard investment in certain industrial activities, but this feature of industrialism is common to all times and places. It is the cross that capital must bear wherever it goes, and when the worst case that can bo brought against our system from tho manufacturer's point of view is that it gives no “finality,” is it not legitimate to seek a qualifying answer in the position which confronts employers everywhere else? To ask for ■'finality” in the scale of wages just now is to ask more from the State than tho State can give iu any department of human activity. It would bo a positive ‘contribution to tho discussion on this and allied problems if Mr Marrirrer had suggested tho moans by which manufacturers could be given tho security they ask for. This, of course, would have to be accompanied by details of the methods through which the rest of tho community might bo guaranteed finality in regard to rent, the price of commodities, and so forth. Tho heart of tho matter will never _be reached by telling us that mechanical devices, like tariffs and labour laws, are only useful when the manufacturer can tell exactly what his expenditure will be, for, manifestly, tho people who purchase his wares want to know precisely the same thing in regard to tho purchasing power of the money they have to spend. If we could have this wo would have the industrial millennium,, hut in asking for ” finality ” wo are much afraid manufacturers arc asking for something in the way of social regulation very different from' what they really want.