Rangitikei Advocate. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8855, 4 July 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

WB are glad to note that the members ■ of the House of Commons who represent the Trades Unions have made a strong and caustic protest against the attempt of the Colonial Premiers and the tariflitos to force on Britain a policy of protection with its consequent increase in the cost of living. The facts they set out in their manifesto are telling and conclusive, and .oven tho London Times, which at present is an advocate of Chamberlainism, does £jipfc attempt to refute them, but contents itself with abuse. That journal complains that signors of the manifesto are unable to realise the standpoint of the working classes in other parts of the Empire, but, unfortunately, it is the Times itself which fails to realise that these colonies will not at present give Britain anything but the sham preference of raising duties against the foreigner. They will not lower their tariff harriers so that British , goods may come in and compete with their own manufactures. In other words, a section of tho colonial population will not allow tho people to get cheap supplies, because these would interfere with their own scheme of securing increased wages, shorter hours, and limitation of output. The Times is apparently under tho delusion that tho colonies will give Britain real preference. No doubt the statements of some of the Premiers may have conveyed that impression, but it is far from the truth—indeed, tho very reverse of it. We may remark that it in curious how cm - cable news is biased by the senders, and is served up to suit tho morning or evening papers in the Australian centres through which wo receive it. One cable man sends to tho morning papers a long description of the freetraders’ manifesto, and the other sends to the e vening’papors a report of the comments of the protectionist Times or of a Tariff Commission which was set up by a Ministry which was signally defeated when it appealed to the electors on „ the question of protection versus . freotrado. Tliat

Tariff Commission will of course make its reports serve party interests. The last.one informs us that a thousand glass-makers were idle because they could not' produce their wares at as low price as foreign competitors.. But, of course, if those who want to buy glasswarc _ a ,id there are many thousands of these in Britain—can be supplied cheaper by the foreigner, then the one thousand displaced would he better employed doing something else than living at the expense of their countrymen. Moreover, it is being amply proved that in giving these supplies the foreign nations are doing the work at the expense of their own people, so that Britain, as a whole, is gaining advantage in every way. If they chose to dump all the glassware Britishers require into the house o" every resident of the British Isles, then Britain would ho so much richer in glassware, and the foreigner so much the poorer, so that the mere fact that a thousand in a particular industry are temporarily forced to seek something else to do is of little consequence compared with the benefit to the rest of Britain’s millions who are supplied with cheaper glassware. Regret must, of course, bo felt for men temporarily thrown out of workby some fluctuation of trade, but the real effect, so far as Britain is concerned, is the _ same as if some labour-saving machine had been invented to cheapen the cost of producing glassware.

WE wonder whether the enemies of the Farmers’ Union will now retract |tlieir allegation that tiro organisation of the farmers of New Zealand is being run solely in the interests of the large landowners. Considering the large number of small farmers who arc members of the Union the aspersion was, of course, absurd, but the Union has now given it a clear refutation by approving of the limitation of mens under some, equitable system. The Union, naturally, does not support wholesale confiscation and general disorganistiou, but quite as naturally considers that laud should be hold foxuse, not for speculative profit. Genuine land-users could not bo expected to act in any other manner than the Colonial Conference has done. But the action must bo convincing to all farmers, and make the position quite clear that the oragnisation studios the intox-ests of all users of country lands. The politicians will now have to invent some other misleading assertion. The trouble [with them is that the Farmers’ Union cannot he used as a party organisation, because its platform lays down principles which must be adhered to, and the average politician lias no use for principles. They only embarrass him.