32 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. {1 Jury, 1901. 
“Such palliatives as a minimum wage law, a Factories Act, an Early Closing 
Act, are not to be confounded with enactments to protect the small producers against 
the competition of the mammoth syndicate. The former may appear to hamper 
capitalism ; in reality they only aid in its development. To have to pay not less than 
a minimum wage, to have to provide so many cubic feet of space for factory hands, 
to have to close at reasonable hours, to adopt proper sanitary measures to ensure the 
health and comfort of the wage-slaves, are inconveniences which affect large companies 
to an infinitesimal degree compared to the extent to which they affect the small 
competitor. ‘The big monopolist can meet the new requirements with ease; the small 
man’s troubles increase. ‘he small man has not only to combat the low prices of the 
big one, but he has to sink more capital in larger buildings, and add to his working 
expenses. Reformers must give more attention to educating*the workers as to the 
probable effect of the legislation which our politicians are too prone to bring forward, 
masquerading in the garb of labour and socialism. Any measure which will increase 
the wage-earner’s wages, reduce his hours of labour, give him better air to breathe, 
will hasten socialism, while hampering the small capitalist, and reducing the number 
of that class which fight socialism because they hope to become large capitalists 
some day. Any measure designed to supply the needy adventurers and others with 
State money to compete with the big syndicate in exploiting the public will only 
retard the forward movement.” ; 
The same paper again refers in a succeeding issue to the subject “State Aid 
v. Socialism,” as follows:—‘ The importance of the question cannot be exaggerated, 
especially to the socialist in these Australian colonies (where much of the preliminary 
work in the direction of extending the function of the State is an accomplished fact), 
because it involves the adoption and pursuance of one of two courses: (1) Acceptance 
from the ruling party, as payment for support, of measures of partial relief from the 
thraldom’ of capitalism; or (2) Implacable resistance to all measures which, 
immediately palliative though they may be, are unmistakably effective in prolonging 
the existence of private capital.” 
A week after the above was written, the following appears under the heading 
“ Socialist League Notes”:—* Resuming the consideration of last week with reference to 
the line of political action immediately necessary, I hold that the socialist must be 
conscientiously opposed to the first course (acceptance from the ruling party of 
measures of partial relief from the thraldom of capitalism), and that he is not 
justified on grounds of policy in adopting it, as it involves complication and obscura- 
tion of the issue, and indefinite postponement of what must come ere industrial 
freedom is accomplished—namely, State possession of the means of conducting 
industry. The neighbouring eienias furnish us with examples of - legislation 
recommended by the several Governments as socialistic, which at a time within the 
memory of most living men would have been declared to be sufficient for the solution 
of the problem of poverty. But what have Acts for the aid of the small capitalists 
in their battle with huge monopolists done for the propertyless ? They have increased. 
the number of his enemies—for it is undeniable that the man with property is opposed 
to being dispossessed of it by the State; his inherited instincts revolt at the idea, and 
his knowledge of the advantage he possesses over the propertyless is a still more 
potent motive. The Radical has plenty of sham socialism up his sleeve, and he will 
play them for all they are worth. The socialist must decline to be tempted ; his is a 
ht against private ownership of the means of industry, and every legislative Act 
which prolongs its existence is a sign of his defeat.” 
From the foregoing it will be observed that the socialist holds up New Zealand 
to your gaze as an “awful example” of capitalism not having its full swing, or, as 
they putit, of hampered capitalism. To the socialist itisjust as sure as death and taxes— 
we must die that we may live. We have been taught to believe that only through death 
and the grave can Heaven be reached. We die to live the better life. To gain the 
paradise promised by the socialist, we have to submit to extinction. Human nature 
regards death and the grave with horror, notwithstanding the hope of translation to a. 
higher sphere, and a happier state to follow; and the self-same instinct provides the 
farmer with a natural aversion to extinction, in spite of the assurance held out by 
those who see with prophetic vision that the advent of an earthly paradise only awaits 
our complete annihilation. It should be noted that the socialist ie his special pets. 
The wage-earners go straight to paradise, English-like, without suffering the incon-. 
venience of being extinguished to make way for the birth of the new system. 
And now for the Individualist: 
His Excellency the Governor, whose utterances must always harmonise with the 
opinions of his responsible advisers, declared at Maryborough that the farmers should 
be allowed to work out their own independence. Sir Horace Tozer, at Gympie, said :. 
4 
