EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11811, 21 December 1912, Page 1

EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

It is startling to read that a New Zeai land Union has successThat Japanese fully protested against Tramp. the despatch here of a Japanese ship of com-. ? merce on the ground that it is manned by a Japanese crew. For such objection there is no right in either law or justice. Much may be said for the policy of keeping Asiatics out of it-he countries inhabited by our race and destined foil the : use of that race for all time, subject "to our power -of defending the same. On that point we yield to no one on earth. But nothing can warrant the claim to prevent any nation from using its own subjects in the manning of its own ships. It". they send their ships liter*?, as they have a perfect right to do, they have the right to send their keels under the control of their -own countrymen. We may object, and surely will, to their entry into the coastal trade' But to -declare that they must employ ;i European crew before coming to a European port is the acme of absurdity. It is worse—it is the height of gratuitous presumption. It is also provocation acute. Moreover, it is worth while asking how long such a position will be tenable. There is "i general trembling throughout the Empire at the state of inferiority in which fho sea power of Britain finds itself in these seas. Why ? Because of the fear lest something damaging the AngloJapanese allianc'e, we may find ourselves delivered over to Japanese attack. And what more liable bring such attack down upon us than unprovoked idiotic action of this kind ? It comes to this —in our relations with Asiatic peoples, are we to go to the length of refusing'to trade with them? A refusal to receive a vessel of another nation because she is manned by men of that nation is, of course, a refusal to trade with that nation. That is an aspect of the question which Labor among us ought to face and consider very thoughtfully before going airy further in such - a course as it has laid down.

We have still to consider several points of view regarding Our Manufactures, our manufactures. First, thero is the standpoint of profit. What do our manufactures pay us? Indeed, do they pay us anything. The answer is supplied by the figures we quoted yesterday. The gross total of value, as shown by* the returns, is £31,729,000; the capital invested in land, buildings, and machinery aggregates £16,730,000. the cost- of the materials used reaches £20,810,000, the wages paid come to £5,572,000, and 6 per cent, is enough to cover interest, sinking fund, and something towards sinking fund on the sixteen millions odd of the investment. If we stretch that charge to 10 per cent, in order to cover all possible charges and contingencies—and ..that seems a fair thing to do —we get a net profit after paying all charges—raw material, wages, interest, sinking fund, maintenance, and contingencies? The figures are: — Cost of materials £20,810,000

Wages paid ... 5,572,000 10 per cent, on £16.730,000 invested ... ... ... 1.673.000 Balance ... 2,274,000

£31,729,000 The balance, after making the allowances postulated in the question (£2,274,000), represent a malrgiu or 13.6 per cent. It is surely—however rough the process of enquiry—a satisfactory position. Evidently there is good cause to regard the state of our manufacturing industry as sound in the extreme. A strong point is that the increase of investment in plant was 42 per cent, for the quinquennium—the highest on record. The next question is of the wages paid. First one sees from the table compiled that of the 56,234 hands employed the proportion of the sexes is 42,267 males a.nd 13,967 females. Tt- is a satisfactorily sulv stantial body of employment, and the proportion of females is not disquieting. Tho amounts paid in wages have 50110 up in the quinquennium for males from £SS 10s lid per head to £lls 2s lOd. and for females from £4l 17s 8d to £50.12s 2d, which, considering that- the averages are .for all ages, not adults merely, is satisfactory. It is interesting to note the relative strength of the employment in the chief industries. Wo content ourselves with giving the seven first on the list as follows: — Sawmills, etc. ' ... ?^1 "Animal food" ... ... ••• 5990 Clothing and boots 5019 Tailoring 4225 Printing, etc. (excluding Government Printing Office) 4222 Dressmaking, etc. ... ... ••- 4128 Iron and brass founderies ... - 374* Flax mills conies fourteenth on the list with 1214, brick and tiles fifteenth with 066. and breweries sixteenth with 848. The last on the list (of those with two figures) at 20 each are colonial wine, tobacco and cigarette works, and pumice works. But as the two last represent steady . increases throughout their history, while the first has gone down from's9 in 190] to 20 in 1911, it is clear that the industry of wine-mak-ing is not, far from a negligible quantity. There are five establishments, paying an aggregate wage of £1438. with an output of £5498, and an investment of- £17,290. When the industry falls before the march of progress in the direction of prohibition the 'heavens will certainly not fall. On the contrary, the table grape under proper management-will assuredly deprive the vignerous of any grievance against the licensing laws. Certainly thero is nothing 111 the possible effects of prohibition on this industry to make us dissatisfied with the generally fine condition and prospects—for the prospects must be good in view of the profitable general nature of the aggregate of industry—of the manufacturing iiwlustry of the .Dominion as disclosed by the last census of the Dominion.