THE HARVESTER TRUST.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13424, 26 October 1905, Page 10

THE HARVESTER TRUST.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —'"Lynx" again puts in an appearance, more narrow-minded than ever. He says because I am a labourer that does not prevent me having broad enough views to recognise that ihcro are two sides to every question. Of course, we know there are two sides to every question: it would be a funny Ihing if there were not. That's not what we are trying to find out, but which is the right side. As for his broad views, I don't seo where they come in. He says that. 1 am unable to show that he is wrong about Now Zealand Labour being too high for competition with outside manufactures. Il is not ihe cheap labour that enables American manufacturers to compcto against New Zealand firms, but the most modern machinery which they use, and also the different mode of working. They put their workman on piecework, and. of course, he will work longer and harder, because tho longer ho works the more he makes. Another thing—America goes in for a large export trade which manufacturers npre do not Besides, America is a big country, and offers more scope for manufactures locally. There'is no duty to pay cn imported machinery here, and the transit across is very small, as the Yankee shipping service reeei\es large sums from its Government by way .if subsidy. If New Zetland can pay higher wages to her workmen than other countries, then more honour to her. The tariff is to regulate outside competition, not tho pulling down of wages Tho statement made oy me that he said he would pull down the wages to allo'v for cheap machinery is not false. lie did not use the actual words, but that- was what he meant, all the same. He said the price of labour in Now Zealand was too high to alloW for outside competition, wliich meant'the wages should come clown.

Now for his other question The farmer shou'd be allowed to purchase his supplies •il the cheapest market so long as it does not interfere with local industries. But if the smalt benefit the farmers receive would force a greater hardship on the manufacturer and workers, then Ihov should not be allowed. If the workers succeeded in getting tho duty taken off Hour, stock, potatoes, etc., so that they could get cheaper food, am! it injured the farmers or any other section of the people, then they would not bs justified in so doing.

"Lvnx" again snys I am so dense that I cannot =m that a duly of -15 per ccnt. is a direct ta\ on the farmer. Tt is nothing of ihe kind, for liuve not tlie manufacture given an assurance llwt if they ore protoctctl thev i\il! rnducs tin; price of implements. Ami if they net a bigger output they will bo able "to" slill leduce the j.ricc .anil bring it down to a level with the American machines And at tho same time th?y would be assisting to .build up 'ocal industry, which is to every man's interest, no matter whether ho be' farmer, manufacturer, or worker. The workers are tho biggest consumers of farm produce, and the more workers the more sale 'rill 1 lie farmer get for his produce, if the farmer psys high wages, liicn lie gets it back in the high prices ruling for farm produce Now, "'Lynx,'' the next time you quote a sentence of mine quote the'whole of it. and .don't strip it to suit your own particular purpose. I said I would put a duty of 45 per cent, on all imported machinery. That would bring in a revenue, tho local industries would bo protected, the workers would still have their so called high wages, and it would be .letter for everybody— farmer and all: if he did not reap the benefit directly he would .indirectly; whereas "Lynx" tries to make out thai :r. was tho worker I was trying to benefit at the expense of the fanner. Now, to Jiow which is the reort narrow-minded, lie is trying to Iwnclif. tho fanner oy letting foreign machinery come into New Zealand free. white I am Irving to get a duty put on that will protect the local manafacturcr. give more cmiloy.-nent to the worker, and alio keep the money in tho country.

Then, as to your correspondent's tale that America built up her industries not by Protection alone, but by her superior workmen, who do a fair day's work, and do not look for trouble, they get plenty of trouble without looking for it. American workmen work harder and longer hours not because they like it, but- because they are compelled to. They aro put on piecework, and the price cut, so that the man will have to work his eyes out to make a decent wage. No man works for tho love of it, but for a living. The farmer does not farm tho land for tho good of other people, but for a living. He talks about tho paid agitators of the workers, but he says n/ithing about the paid agitators of the farmers. He is too thick in the skull to see that he is an agitator himself. As to the foreign trust and the local one being an open question, I bog to differ from him. The local trust spends tlio money in tho country, the foreign one takes it out; so the foreign one is the worst for the country.

" Lynx " quotes tlio Premier on population, and exposes his ignorance 011 that question. Mr Seddon's cry was for a British population, not for heathen Chinarcen; and his remark if the white man cannot compete with them let- him stand down brands him as a 'feather-brained fanatic.

"Lynx" is now in favour of the duty being taken off cereals, although lie was down on Mr Millar for suggesting it. As for mo misrepresenting 1 him on the free/ importation of wheat, he nut it in such a way tha.t it was hard to know what conclusion to draw from it. He put it this way: "Fine thing for tho workers, Jimmy." How was anybody to know whether lie" meant- it would be "a fine thing or a bad thing? It was more like a jest than anything else. He also quote Mr Beav«n—if we reduce our price we will get the trade, and the man who is' not in a position to do so can still sell at 'the higher price, and "Lynx" says ho would have to go to the wall. If lie" could not compete in tho local market ho would have' to go to the wall, as there is no for him, but there is in foreign competition, and wo have a. just risht to apply that' remedy. He talks about the active agitation promoted by tho -workers against tho farmers and trust (so-called). 'The .workers have not promoted any agita. tion. against the farmers, but against the-

trust. He says nothing about the agitation promoted by the manufacturers.' Oh, no; they- are the employers j' tliey aro the'men with the money, and, of course, they could not do anything wrong. Ho has the cheek to call himself a farm labourer. After reading his spiteful letters about the ■ workers anyone would be easily stuffed, who would believe that—l am, etc.. JiJUir O'SrADE.