Rangitikei Advocate. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9402, 24 March 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE question of preference to Unionists is one that will have to be considered seriously not only by employers but also by workers. Mr Justice Sim has expressed his opinion that employers should never employ non-Unionists and justifies this view by the allegation that the Unions have secured increased wages by means of awards, and therefore out of gratitude all workers should join a Union. The opinion held by the Judge of the Arbitration Court on the subject of awards is perhaps somewhat liable to bias owing to the fact that he has had a principal share in drawing awards up and it does not agree with the views expressed not long ago by the chief representatives of labour. In a long manifesto, which we published at the time it was issued, the labour leaders showed by figures which have been generally accepted as correct that the wages of agricultural workers who have-irio Union have increased at a greater rate than those of the employees in trades which have all the benefits supposed to result from constant reference to the Arbitration Court. In a small and highly protected country like New Zealand it is possible for wages to be raised artificially by awards, but in the long run there can be no permanent rise in wages so long* as the supply of labour is in excess of the demand. , In New Zealand there is generally not an excess of labour and therefore wages would have increased in any case, but at the present tim,e the slump in the building, flax, and timber trades has caused a temporary surplus of workers which will tend to reduce wages in spite of awards. It is at times like this that the attempt to restrict employment to Unionists falls heavily on workers. Fortunately agriculture has hitherto not been 'affected by awards, and men who are out of work at their trades are able to make some money by' harvesting, grass seeding and other temporary occupations. Such men could not be members of an Agricultural Labourers Union, but if Mr Justice Sim had his way and made Unionism universal and compulsory they would be debarred from obtaining work, Even in the most prosperous times it often happens that a man may desire to change his occupation and in the past this has always been possible and the demand for workers in expanding trades has thus been met. Now this state of affairs is being altered and every extension of Unionism will render workers less mobile. In order to join a .Union a man must serve his time and thus each worker early in life must choose his business and afterwards keep to it. It will not be possible to meet a sudden need for workers in any particular trade because the number of qualified workmen will depend on the number of apprentices who entered it ten or fifteen years earlier. Similarly in those businesses which are declining the unfortunate men who have learned those trades will be debarred from taking up new employment. The Unions are trying hard to make each trade a close corporation with th'e idea of restricting the tion for work. This scheme might work well if the amount of employment offering in any particular occupation was always constant but changes of fashion and alterations in market values are constantly causing the growth of some industries and the decay of others. With industrial conditions in such a state of flux'the present policy of the Unions may be as injurious to the real interests of the workers as it undoubtedly is - to those of employees and of the general public. / IN his feverish anxiety to get into the limelight, Sir Joseph Ward has been even bolder than his predecessor in usurping the privileges of Parliament. Without in any way consulting the representatives of the people, on whom the burden will fall, he has actually dared to pledge this country to the expenditure of two millions of money, or four millions if it is required. Even if war had actually broken out between Britain and Germany, the ignoring of the representatives of the people would be inexcusable. Even Mr Seddon did not presume to act during the Boer War without consulting all members of Parliament, previous to despatching the first contingent. Of course, if Parliament wishes to do so, it may repudiate the action of the Premier, who has no right to make the country liable for a single penny without the approval of Parliament. Judging from the fact that such members as Mr T. E. Taylor, Mr Fisher, Mr Wright, Mr James Allen and others, resent this unwarrantable action, it is possible that there will be some very strong comments when Parliament assembles. It is also possible that by that time the reasons wby the scare has been created will be fairly manifest. In any case it will not be safe to allow a Premier to create a precedent by pledging the country to the expenditure of a huge sum without consulting the representatives of the taxpayers.

WE observe that the advocates of State issue of paper money are using as an argument! the statement that when our Government came to the assistance of the Bank of New Zea-

land it guaranteed a paper issue. This allegation is entirely incorrect. Moreover the action of the Ministry of the day was absolutely unnecessary. There could have been no crisis such as occurs sometimes in other countries, because on our Statute Book was an Act specially designed to prevent any banking crisis. By this Act it was provided that the notes of any bank which found itself in difficulties should be legal tender up to the value of its assets, and the assets of this particular Bank were far more than sufficient to provide for all its liabilities.