Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8865, 16 July 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

THOSE Hew Zealanders who are desirous of still further increasing the cost of living, in order that their own schemes may benefit, are at present busily engaged in exploiting what is called a “sweated industries exhibit, ’ ’ and a good deal of indignation is being wasted on it. Napier has been particularly " sentimental over this alleged “shocking example,” and the other day the Press Association agent there sent ns tho following telegram:—“The sweated industries exhibit, shown here for a week, was despatched to Wanganui to-day. The exhibit was visited by upwards of 2000 people in this town, and great interest was aroused at tire conditions under which tho articles were manufactured. Sweated industries formed tbo subject for vnnms at several of the local - -"1 Sunday.’• .It is to bo 3 , ;,. *“■>.t ,i. ii so many people are being mlid.-d. that- even preachers have been iff.- iand induced to assist a movement to promote a policy which is responsible for the “sweating.” For it is absolutely true that the “sweating” iu “protected” countries is infinitely worse

> than in Britain, and that the very “sweating’ 1 in Britain is a result of the excessive “sweating” in “protected” countries which compete with her. It is the last resort of the employer to compete with the “sweated” products of German and other Continental industries. Moreover, in considering this .question it must not be forgotten .that the standard of living is much lower in those “protected” countries, and -that what will not pay the operative here may represent comfort and good living to others. In this connection we may quote [from “International Trade, ’ ’ a work by Mr J. A. Hobson, author of “Problems of Poverty,” and several other works on political economy. It is, of course, deplorable that “sweating” should be practised but on the question of how it affects others he flays:—“There are two plain reasons

why a protective tariff imposed on ‘sweated’ or cheaply produced foreign goods is no trno pendant or Supplement to the industrial legislation in ‘protection’ of labour in homo industries.. The first is that it is not in accordance with , our national interest to stop cheap goods from coming into tiffs country, when ;ihat cheapness is durable; the second is that wo have no duty and no power to. control the legislation affecting the conditions of production in foreign countries. To the first reason it may, perhaps, bo objected : ‘But the importation of sweated goods affects injuriously our nation regarded as producers. ? The

answer hero is a flat denial. The | irregular or casual dumping of such goods does injure certain British trades, and it has been admitted that, : under certain circumstances, protection might he applicable ; if it \ could ho properly safeguarded. But | the regular admission of foreign | goods which, whether products of a| sweating system or of superior j. technical economies, undersell our i goods in our own market, is a hene-j fit and not an injury to British:in- [ dustry. It is to the real advantage | of the British nation, not merely in | its capacity of consumers,, but of 1 producers, to permit freely the dis- j placement of the capital and labour j in a trado which can be systemati-1 cally undersold by foreign goods;] the temporary loss and waste will he j more than compensated by the i diversion of industrial energy to | other employments. The fact that, this argument fails to convince the ■ practical man is duo to the absence of any governmental policy of compensation for the capital and labour thus displaced and 1 cancelled in the

interest of the larger public. Such compensation for displacement is a logical implication of a sound social policy. So far as capital is concerned, it would be very difficult of application; so far as labour is concerned, it forms a powerful basis of appeal for a scheme of public relief for the' ‘unemployed, ’ not as a charitable measure, hut as a plain demand of social justice and public expediency. Tho failure of Government hitherto to recognise adequately the duty of easing industrial displacements of capital and labour, desirable iu tho general interest of commerce, must not drive us to the expedient of an artificial prevention of these displacements, which are the very conditions of progress iu our industrial life. If • every British- trado ■ in danger of being undersold by foreigners iu the homo market could call upon our Government to slop that competition (for this is what

protection against foreign sweated goods signifies), industry would pro tanto bo stereotyped in this country, and progress, alike iu methods of production aud in selection of ployment for capital and labour, would be grievously impaired. So much for tho first point. The regular admission of ‘sweated goods’ from foreign countries is not detrimental but beneficial to British industry. Now, in answer to the second objection, we should urge that our legislative interference with conditions of production in British industries is not designed to prevent goods from being sold cheap, though it may have that effect, but to safeguard the welfare of certain classes of labour iu the interest of the nation. It is part of tbo duty of our Government as representing the nation to insist that tho conditions of production iu this country shall conform to a certain standard of security aud decency. We have uu corresponding duty with regard to processes of production iu other countries, nor have we auy power of undertaking such a task ; we have uo machinery for the ascertainment or the repression of foreign ‘sweating.’ A purely national legislative body is competent to deal with ‘sweating’ and with other conditions of industry within tho nation; it is not competent to deal with foreign ‘ sweating. ’ ’ ’