Rangitikei Advocate. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9408, 31 March 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE Bill introduced by - Mr Churchill in the House of Commons to provide for a minimum wage in certain industries is a new departure in British legislation. The evils of sweating in these industries are so great that reformers are at their wits’ end to know how to remedy them. Attempts have been made to encourage manufacturers who pay fair wages by drawing up a list of shops which do not sell sweated goods, but this has been of little avail as most people are tempted by cheapness and make no inquiries as lo the conditions under which the goods are produced. The forma tion of unions among the workers who "suffer from sweating is impossible, because most of them are so poor that they will accept even the smallest wages to save them from starvation. Under these circumstances the proposal for a minimum wage seems the only possible remedy, hut it is not supported by many of those who are best acquainted with the problems connected with sweating. The reason for this attitude is that in most of the sweated the workers are in competition with machinery and are only employed because their work is done more cheaply than it can bo by machinery, A rise in wages would, therefore, mean that the vast majority of workers would be no longer required. On this assumption, therefore, the result of the establishment of a minimum wage'W.onld mean that the workers instead of receiving a starvation wage wcnld receive no wages at ail. Still it is not quite certain how things will work one, and, therefore, it seems worth taking the risks involved in the application of the principle of a minimum wage in a few of the industries where sweating is most prevalent. Experience of the action of law, if it Is passed, will act as a guide for future legislation.

GERMANY has scored a great triumph in the near Bast by her action with regard to the annexation by Austria of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. When the news of Austria’s move was received Britain, France and Russia joined to point out that the step taken was a serious breach of the Treaty of Berlin and proposed that, the matter should be referred to-a conference of the Powers. Germany did not join in this demand and, so far as appeared publicly, took no great interest in the question, but it is now known that she threatened to invade Russia unless that Power withdrew her objections to the annexation. Russia, with her army in a state of almost total disorganisation, could offer no resistance to such a threat, and, therefore, she has submitted with the best grace she could assume. Britain and France did not think that the question was of sufficient importance to form the pretext for a European war, and, therefore, they did not encourage Russia to resist the demands of Germany. As the result of her action Germany has secured the gratitude of Austria and has shown Turkey that her hostility is a force to be reckoned with. The whole episode is an interesting example of German diplomatic methods. There are some persons who consider nations shonld do nothing in their corporate capacity which their members would not consider right as individuals. This is the view on which we believe British statesmen honestly try to act. German diplomats, however, consider this a milk and water policy, and are ready to take any course which they think themselves strong enough to support by force of arms. It is well to recognise this divergence of ideals in the diplomacy of the two nations, because people who are accustomed to tell Hie truth themselves are often led into the error of supposing that others are bound by the same habit, an assumption which puts them at a considerable disadvantage.