PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21198, 22 August 1940, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Coi respondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear. WHAT COLUMN IS THIS? (To the Editor) Sir,—ltems of news are interesting these days, especially when they relate to domestic matters. Two recent gems refer to labour troubles on the wharves and in the mines. It is significant that when a Labour Government is in power the workers seem to revolt against the actions of their friends in Parliament. These recent events suggest that some ! secret column is at work, or is it I that a class distinction is of more j importance than destroying the ; enemy?—l am, etc., CURIOUS. Hamilton, August 21. CAPITAL V. LABOUR? (To the Editor* Sir, —The Socialistic programme advanced by workers since the days of the naughty nineties is now bearing fruit. The wicked capitalist is at it all the time. One would have thought that as the years advanced the increase of knowledge would have opened the eyes of the workers to the fact that the employer is not such a monster as has been painted. Recently, in this country, an advance has been made of 5 per cent in wages. No sooner is this done when expressions are made that the capitalists will squeeze this advance out of the workers once more. If we assume a hypothetical case wherein a capitalist has been paying out wages in advance of award rates, what happens if he adopts the policy of reducing the rates of pay to that of the award and puts on the 5 per cent accordingly? Will the “worker” protest against this method? It appears to the writer that the action of the capitalist is correct and that the worker concerned has no kick coming. I may add that I use the terms “capitalist” and “worker” ; according to the usual definitions of the trade unionist. —I am, etc., JUSTICIA. Hamilton, August 21.

MOTHER OF ALL MONOPOLIES (To the Editor) Sir, —If the space could be spared, I am sure that the following would be of more than ordinary interest to readers concerned with social reform. It is the report of a speech delivered by our present great war leader, the Hon. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, in the King’s Theatre, Edinburgh, on July 17, 1909: ‘‘Land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies—it is a perpetual monopoly, and is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position—land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions. “The landlord watches the busy population making the city grow larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and all the while sits and does nothing. Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles away in the mountains—and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of the improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people. Many of the most important are effected at the cost of the municipality and of the ratepayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced. “It does not matter where you look, or what examples you select, you will see that every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream off for himself, and everywhere else today the man or public body that wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior , use, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to the land, and its owner for the time being is able to levy his toll upon every form of industry. A portion—in some cases the whole—of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community is represented in the land value, and finds its way automatically into the landlord’s pocket. “If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new tramway, or the institution of an improved service for workmen’s trains, or a lowering of fares, or a new invention, or any other public convenience affords a benefit to the workers in any particular district, it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there. “You must understand that when I speak of the landlord or the land monopolist I am dealing more with the process than with the individual landowner. I have no wish to hold class up to disapprobation. It is not the individual I attack, it is the system. It is not the man who is bad. it is the system. We do not want to punish the landlord—we want to alter the law.” Anyone who has read the historical facts knows that Mr Churchill is right, that land rent monopoly (private instead of public collection of land rent), is the mother of national debt, financial and tariff monopolies, and of all others. Years ago Waikato Times correspondents were writing about Henry Ford having raised wages at Detroit to the highest in U.S.A. Perhaps they might now be interested in knowing why Ford did not go on with the good work. Professor Star Jordan visited Detroit and investigated. He found that, in the words of Churchill, when Ford

raised the wages the landlords of Detroit charged the workers and shopkeepers “more for the privilege of living there.” —I am, etc., t. e. mcmillan Matamata, August 20.