The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1908. LIBERALISM AND LABOUR.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 167, 14 July 1908, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1908. LIBERALISM AND LABOUR.

ii c . -j 'for the cause that Jacks assistance. For the wrong that itestfj resistance, for the future in the distance. And the good that use can do. ._—.-w^ m -m—■■■ —m -———.

1 We are by no means inclined to take political rumours too seriously, and we certainly have no desire to exploit a difficult situation for the purposes of sensa- t tional journalism. But taking into account all the circumstances of the case, we are regretfully driven to the conclusion that there is a solid substratum of fact underlying the vague reports and suggestions that have supplied our parliamentary reporter with material for his communication on " the Possible Crisis," which appears to certain well-informed observers to be imminent at Wellington. As ; our readers will see from a glance at our parliamentary columns, what is anticipated is a definite breach between the Labour section of the Liberals and the majority of the party; and the excuse for this expected secession of the Labour representatives from the Liberal ranks is > the proposed modification of the Arbitra- ■ tion system. As everybody consulted on ' the subject appears to admit, the attitude of the Labour members toward Government will depend largely upon the form in which the Arbitration Amendment Bill gets through committee. But there' seems " to be a very general impression hat the Labour representatives are highly dissatisfied with the Bill in its present.shape, ' and that any attempt on the part of ' Government to force it through the House without radical alteration will precipitate a serious difference of opinion between two sections of the Liberal party if not the actual crisis that our informants have forecast. So far as the Arbitration Act Amendments Bill is concerned, we can well understand that it is in the eyes of many people open to serious criticism. To us it seems an honest attempt to deal equitably with an extremely difficult problem. But, as Mr. Millar said the other day, the controversy over the bill really resolves itself into this one question: Do the workers wish to retain the power to strike or not? Most intelligent people see clearly enough that an Arbitration Act which cannot be enforced is simply farcical; and if the workers and the employers are genuinely anxious to find some peaceful way of settling industrial disputes, they must agree to abide by the awards of the Arbitration Court, and to submit to the penalties imposed for breaches of the law. If either party refuses to adopt this course, there is an and of the Arbitration system; and the sooner the country recognises this, the better for us all. Whatever the original purpose of the founders of our Arbitration system may have been, it is absurd to pretend that it can continue to exist if either employers are allowed to lock out or workers are allowed to strike with impunity. Government has given ample . proof of its good faith in bringing down : this Amending Bill, which suggests a feasible way out of most of the difli- ' culties that have previously arisen in the j administration of the Act. But if the < workers and the Labour representatives, - by their opposition to the bill, mean that ' in their opinion the wage-earner 3 should , persist in resorting to strikes whenever they cannot get their way otherwise, by -l all means let Government drop the bill J and the Arbitration system with it. However, we have said that this dif- 1 Acuity about Mr Millar's Amending Bill ■ is only the occasion, not the cause of , the threatened secession of the Labour , members from the Liberal party. For <

—^—■—n——»———^———a— some years past there has been manifested "a tendency on the part of certain extreme representatives of the Labour point of view to dissociate themselves from the main body of the Liberals. The idea at the bottom of their dissatisfaction seems to be that Liberalism does not go far or fast enough to suit their notion of progress. They appear to be unable to realise that radical changes in the political or industrial or social system must be made only by slow degrees, unless they are to produce violent and dangerous dislocation and disorganisation. So far we give the leaders of these malcontents credit for a disinterested though misguided faith in the virtues of revolutionary Radicalism. But we fear that there are other forces at work tending to produce the movement that now threatens the Liberal party with disruption. We may remind our readers of the attempt made four years ago to found a Political Labour League which was to do more effectually the work of an effete and exhausted Liberalism. The promoters of this League were none of them men of public standing or political experience, but they all unreservedly declared their ability to govern the country better than Mr Seddon and his colleagues, and their desire to supersede them in control of our affairs. Happily for the country Mr Seddon dealt vigorously with this incipient revolt, and it collapsed at once. But we have only too much reason to fear that tbe overweening ambition and the mistaken self-confi-dence of a few of our embryo statesmen of the "mute inglorious" type have at least as much to do with the threatened defection of Labour as any objection that the wage-earners may entertain to Mr Millar's Arbitration Act Amendment Bill. We are well aware that this threatened revolt of Labour against Liberalism represents a condition of political affairs by no means peculiar to New Zealand. In Australia the Labour party has long since struck out on independent lines, and in England, where Labour has only just begun to secure separate recognition for itself in tho political world, its most typical representatives are withdrawing themselves as far as possible from the Liberal side of the House. But while we admit the fact, we regard this policy on the part of British and Australian Labour leaders as altogether mistaken and regrettable, and we hope that our own Labour members will carefully refrain from imitating it. For no one who has followed the growth of Labour anywhere as a political force can doubt that it Owes its very existence to Liberalism. More than this, it is due entirely to Liberalism that the wageearners, whether in England, Australia or New Zealand, have been able to secure so much of their just rights and privileges that they are now at last in a position to strike out for themsslves. In New Zealand moie especially, the workers owe to Liberalism every single benefit and advantage that has made their position so infinitely preferable to that of their fellow workers in the Old World. Seeing what Liberalism has done for them it would surely be in the highest degree irrational and unwise for them to repudiate it, and to detach themselves from the party that is still enthusiastically carrying its principles into effect, merely because in the opinion of a few rash and wrong-headed people Liberalism clings to over-slow and gradual methods of progress and reform. On the political disadvantages of the three-party system, as exhibited in Australia, we need not dwell. But for the sake of the workers themselves, we hope that they will not rob themselves of their strongest champions and their best allies by disowning Liberalism at this time of day, and that they will not, by reckless precipitancy, | compel moderate and cautious people to adopt a course that would inevitably result in a reaction against social and industrial progress, and would force many Liberals, in self defence, into something like the traditional attitude of Conservatism.