PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS — SECTION O. 
151 
is in itself a bad training. Such workers are poor because they are 
inefficient, and are inefficient because they are poor, and because their 
parents have been poor. 
It would seem therefore that if this class is to be raised to a higher 
level, the first step in that direction (though by no means the only 
step) must be the raising of their present low wages, that being a 
condition without which a satisfactory life for themselves, and, still 
more, a good education for their children, is almost impossible. 
But, on the other hand, is it possible to raise the wages while 
the wage-earners remain such as their circumstances have made 
them ? If free bargaining is for this purpose to be set aside, how 
is that to be done, and who is to do it ? 
Such action must be taken, if at all, either by individuals (private 
employers, for instance), or by voluntary associations (such as trade 
unions, and associations of employers), or by Government. 
Now, the private employer is clearly incapable of remedying the 
evil by his individual and separate action. Even assuming the most 
hearty good-will on his part, he cannot pay more than the highest 
wage compatible with carrying on his business, and getting at least a 
bare living for himself; and that wage may stilL be less than it is 
desirable that the wage-earner should receive. For the emplover has 
to lower the selling price of his produce till ho finds buyers in the 
market ; and if competition keeps that price low, his choice may be 
only between paying low wages and paying none at all. 
As to the action of voluntary associations — of trade unions 
especially, and the substitution of collective for individual bargaining 
at which they aim— there is much to be said; but I must pass on now 
to discuss possible action of Governments in raising low wages. 
There are three ways in which a Government can act on wages 
and conditions of work. First, as a direct emplover of workers ; 
secondly, as an indirect employer, through contractors ; and thirdly,' 
by regulations controlling private employments. 
As to the first point, it is in the power of a Government to fix 
the wages of its employees either at or above the rate at which 
competition would settle them. Winch is best? That a Government 
should pay its workmen at the lowest rate at which it can get them, 
or that it should pay something more P 
In the Australian colonies the principle is, I think, generally 
accepted, that Government should not beat down its employees, at 
least in the lower-paid employments, to the lowest rate at which 
workers can be got. Government should, it is argued, be the model 
employer. Since it has all the wealth of the country to fall back 
upon, it is not, like a private firm, in danger of ruin if it deals 
liberally with those in its employment ; and it should set an example 
which may have some influence on private employers also. 
But at what point should the minimum be fixed? If we had 
only to consider the interest of the particular wage-earners immediately 
concerned, nothing more would be needed than to decide what is the 
most^satisfactory income for a man to receive— whether £500 a year 
or £5,000 a year — and fix it at that. 
But wo are limited by the obvious fact that, in increasing the 
incomes of these persons, we are diminishing by the same amount the 
incomes of others. The loss must fall on someone ; but on whom ? 
