LABOUR AND COMPULSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 16, 19 January 1916, Page 9

LABOUR AND COMPULSION.

(To the .Editor.) Sir, —Your correspondents, in reply to ' mc, are running away from the point. ' It is this: . . . "H compulsory service is '• good enough to save an industry, it is ' good enough to save a country." That ; was, according to the "Star," said by "a British trade unionist." It is a good, sane, and fair principle, and 1 publicly • endorsed and emphasised it in your 1 columns. Mr Oscar Mcßrine and Mr M. • C Irvine then tried in tbe "Star" to I shatter that impregnable truth with two • evil principles inherently unjust and sub--1 versive of good government. One was that corporate coercion ib good so long . as trades unions do the coercing for the protection of their own class interests, but wrong when the State coerces in defence of all classes and of all interests. The other was: That the State is not to be the decisive judge when conscription or coercion is necessary for tne adequate resisting of an enemy and the saving of the nation, but irresponsible trades unions are to be' the judge. I demur to those permicious principles, and so do ninety-eight per cent of loyal persons in New Zealand capable of understanding them, including "a British trade unionist," and many of our trade unionists who are now heroically figUting for us in the trenches. If an unusually pitiless and powerful enemy were at our gates, and any eligible men refused to obey their country's call to fight that enemy, or combined to deter or prevent others from fighting him. they would be traitors assisting the enemy, and the very instinct of selfpreservation would compel a State to treat such men accordingly.—l am, etc, F. G. EWINGTON. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Your correspondent Tom Bloodwortb contends that there is a fundamental difference between the "absolute" compulsion as exercised by the State, and compulsion by a union; which, he says, is "not absolute," because a man need not belong to one. That a trade I union official can speak as if the political power of the State and a trade union were co-equal, amazes mc; if the rank and file of unionism hold a like opinion it explains much of their conduct at times. • A brief definition of the State and its functions is given as "The democratic State is all the people; it obtains authority from them to use constitutionally in protecting their lives, property and well-being in every circumstance; from enemies within and without." A trade union is a voluntary association of some adult individuals who combine to further a common interest against their employers in a manner prescribed by the State, which, as society is economically interdependent, may be inimical to its welfare. This power is conferred by the State to be used legitimately, and may be revoked. A true patriot has no difficulty in assenting to the paramountcy of the interests of the State, as a whole, against the interests of a part. To lay down the principles underlying the relations of the State and the individual in all their aspects requires more space and time than can be given it. I will, therefore, confine myself to a consideration of the. freedom of a social contract. Your correspondent states that if he voluntarily becomes a soldier he will rightly be expected to submit to military discipline; that is, to lay down his life, it may be, at the command of his superior'officer, a State functionary. How,then. can he logically object to placing his services at the disposal of the State, if he, not being native-born, voluntarily . became a citizen of New Zealand. His reference to compulsory marriage, teadrinking, etc, is one of the fallacies of reasoning pointed out 2000 years ago by Aristotle, the father of logic, and yet we complacently speak of the spread of education and the progress of humanity. To bring the war to a successful issue a much keener sense of patriotism or State consciousness must be cultivated by the British people; the freedom from j direct State interference has given them a less openly expressed sense of devotion J to the State than have the people of Germany. Germany is an object lesson to the world in State organisation. The - rights of the individual are in abeyance; the State is supreme. Tbe moral turpitude of her rulers warns us what we may expect if we slacken our efforts to defeat her. Space forbids a comparison of England and Germany as States, or the idiosyncracies of their peoples. A sufficient contrast is shown by the foul murder of non-combatants in the Lusitania horror. Such an action on the part of our Navy is unthinkable. We may be justly proud that to "be British" in synonymous with being a "white man" and honourable conduct. The punishment meted out to Nurse Cavell and to the German Consul at Sunderland for a similar offence marks the wide gulf between the English and German mind. As a eugenist I hope for the gradual improvement of the race, but if the superman is to be a creature of intellect devoid of honour and morality, then it is for the world's happiness to strangle him at birth. As a philosophic socialist, I do not oppose conscription, because it is a step towards State control, and I know that the camp and the battlefield will engender a feeling of "camaraderie" among the workers that trade unionists sadly lack. Nor do 1 fear the probability of workers as soldiers being employed by the State to oppose trades unions, because I know that until we return men to Parliament who will restrict the individual ownership of natural opportunity, all attempts to raise wages are a mere shuffling of the cards. To win the war, 1 sum up the whole duty of the individual just now, to practice strict economy and do his utmost for the State—l am, etc., AJ.