Untitled

Press, Volume L, Issue 14907, 4 March 1914, Page 8

pistol at the head of the employers, and indirectly the public. The stand taken up by the employers has been perfectly correct. They insist £hat the men shall return to work, and the demands for higher wages and shorter hours be referred to tho tribunal that deals with such matters. But the Ministry has sided with the men. though these men have broken the law passed by a Labour Government. Mr Holman has the effrontery not only to threaten the -employers with a State monopoly, bnt even to cay that they will not be allowed killing space in tho abattoirs. Yet the same Mr Holman had much to say over hero about the value of arbitration, and the necessity of preserving this method of settling disputes. Surely he must see that, of all people, tho Ministry ought to set an example in this respect. His present policy is an encouragement of agreement-breaking. He gave an assurance to the employers that the men would not strike again. How on earth can he give such an undertaking for mnn who have just shown their contempt for awurds under the Act? But wo must remember that Mr Holman is not a tree 'igent. He is the servant of a party that regards one class as the whole people, and the employer as a person who has no rights.

It appears to us that a word or two moro may be said concerning the Leader of the Opposition's extravagant, but quite characteristic, misrepresentation of the taxation figures in his Dunedin speech. Sir Joseph Ward pleaded guilty at Winton, admitting that most of the 10s 3d per head which he had charged the Government with acfling to the taxation per head had been added by himself, and we need cay no more about his connexion with the incident, particularly as the public can judge for itself how much respect can be paid to his figures in future. But a great number of Opposition newspapers repeated the false figures, and added embellishments of their own. Our readers may find it difficult to believe, but it is nevertheless a fact, that after the Leader of the Opposition's misrepresentation had been exposed, and even after he had ad nutted his fault, the chief organ of his party has deliberately repeated the misstatement without any qualification. "Toryism," it says, "has "raised costly loans, overspent its "' revenue, and increased the taxation by " 10s 3d a head of the population." The other Opposition papers have not been quite so bold as this, but not one of them has apologised for or withdrawn its embellishments and enlargements of the original fabrication. Ono of them, indeed, WToto of the incident as simply a good joke. It is in no Bmall measure because of their strange taste in jokes that the "Liberals" have lost the confidence of what they doubtless think is a deplorably humourless community.

The State distribution of school books has recently been a good deal discussed in New York as a logical part of a system of free State education, and there have been suggestions that tho State Government should go into the business of publishing school books. California did so, but its experience has not been a very great success. Tho books printed at the "State-printery" and sold at cost carried higher prices than the same books in other States. During 1913 the Californian Government distributed 1,461,623 books at an average of about a shilling each, and as the average expenditure on school books throughout the country is about 2s 6d, California will have to show that? not more than three books per pupil are consumed each year. Perhaps this could be done, but the State-published books aro admittedly flimsier than the old ones. The New York "Post" says the matter is of growing national interest, for other Western States are thinking of following California's example. They aro beginning to think in America that •' tho complex art of textbook-making " is not one which can best be taken out of private hands and practised only by State officials.

When tho last mail left London it was being freely rumoured that, despite Ministerial assurances to, the contrary, there wore serious dissension* in tlio Cabinet over the Navy Estimates, Mr Churchill and Mr Lloyd George being engagod in a duel. Sera© significance was attached to certain articles in the "Daily Mail," between which and Mr Churchill there have Been signs of rather more intimate relations than usually subsist between an important Cabinet Minister and a newspaper of very independent political views. The "Mail" declared early in January that the strain between Mr Churchill and the Liberal Party "has now nearly reached the breaking point," not only on the Navy question, but on Homo Rule. Mr Churchill, v ho has shown in more than one speech, "has never willingly 'toed the line' •to the j Itedmondite faction." A few days later it was hinted that the decision of Cabinet on tho N*vy would "'not be entirely freo from preoccupation with regnird to the effect it may havo upon the future political career of the First Lord of the Admiralty." His Freotrado viou-e would make it impossible for Mr Churchill to join the Unionists with any comfort, and a good many people are thinking that a middlo party may emerge with. Mr Churchill at the head of it. There are more unlikely things.

Mr J net ice Higgine, the President of thft Commonwealth Arbitration Court, has long been known for his sympathy with the aims and policy of organised Labour. Indeed, it is only the other day, as our readers will remember, that he was held tip by the Australian "Worker 1 ' as a model of what an industrial judge should be. This fact, however, is unlikely to moderato the indignation with which thoroughgoing militant unionists will hear of his statement that "the Court will not arbitrate for a striking union." Our own Arbitration Court came in for some hostile criticism in ,r Liberal" and Labour circles quite recently when it refused to make an award for a union which went on strike while tiie Court was considering its decision. A union which has gone on strike has, by doing co, taken the law into its own hands — has, indeed, notified that it intends to rely upon itself and eet itself above tho law. To ask in such circumstances for the benefits of a law which it has broken either in the letter or in the spirit, is to make a demand that is repugnant to justice, to commonsense, and to public policy. Tiaere or© politkiam, we all know, who are quite

ready to ignore the voices of justice, eotnmonsense, and public policy when tbere appears to bo a prospect of gain in pandering to militant strikers; and perhaps some of these may be ready to blame Mr Justice Higgins.

Major G. H. James, a Victorian officer, was confident (or inexperienced) enough, to give an address before a number of anti-militarists the other day on compulsory training. Of course, the inevitable happened. Major James kept the facts, and the audience kept the opinions, and so neither side made any progress towards tho conversion of the other. But one point raised Ls worth notice. A lady objected that the boys -.vent out at night, and met -such horrid other boys," to which Major James politely replied that horrid, boys were to bo met with even in Sunday-schools. Then a "superior gentleman" (tho description comes from the "Argus ) remarked, "Yes; but one can leave the Sunday-schools." Of course one can. For the matter of that one could take one's boy and shut him up. Baniel-like, in a tower, never allowing him to see another boy, but what good would it do him? While these timid people are afraid lest their boys should come to moral harm in training hours, there is excellent reason to believe that compulsory training is breaking up or weakening the larrikin "pushes" that were so long a curse of Sydney and Melbourne.

Since Dr. Wilson became President of the United States, the American Government has gone in rather extensively for "paternalism." It does a great deal nowadays in the way of issuing good advice to the people. One of the latest circulars issued by fhe Public Health Service is unusual and interesting. It is a caution against suspiciousness, sensitiveness, seclusiveness, anxiety, fear, fretting, over-work, over-excitement, and despondency, as dangerous mental conditions which may bring on "mental ■wreckage." "Day-dreaming," the circular says, "should be discouraged, and if a person worries ho should tell his troubles to another and free his mind, or else take a mental inventory which will show things in their proper valuation, 6o that one thought does not become an obsession leading to insanity." May we commend this excellent advice to our "Liberal" friends?