A Chance for the Workers.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14917, 16 March 1914, Page 6

A Chance for the Workers.

During the recent strike of coal porters in London, •'The Times" made an in-

teresting .suggestion to the strikers, namely, that they should enter the real trade themselves, and show London how it fthouid be conducted. "The Times - ' regarded circumstances as extraordinarily favourablo for tuch an experiment. In tho first place, public attention was concentrated on tho strike, and if the Amalgamated Coal Porters went into the coal business, they would do so with a {.plendid advertisement. Secondly, the jiir was full of tho theory that wageearners should control thpir industries. Thirdly, buying and selling coal did not require gre.it technical knowledge, and the coal porters were the very men who should know about the quality of coal and tho best methods ot handling it. Further, not much capital was required to start, and if the union could not finance the enterprise, surely some of the other unions, always eager to prove their theories, woulfl help it. At any rate, jt would bo far better to put money into such a business than squander it on a sympathetic strike. The public would look on the enterprise with a sympathetic eye. The coal dealer, with his fondness for raising prices, is not popular, and "many peo"ple shrewdly suspect the existence of "a 'ring' in this trade, and regard the "Coal Exchange as a sort of robbers' ''cave." All things considered, "The •' Times" was justified in regarding the time as exceptionally favourable for the foundation of a business, owned and managed by the workers, which would cheapen coal and bring in a nice profit to the union

Objections can, of course, be readily raised to such a suggestion, even by people who are not in the coal trade. But the point to be emphasised is that the officials of the Coal Porters' Union made hardly any attempt to deal with the proposal on its merits. A member of the "Daily Mail" staff visited the half-dozen directors of the strike, and asked them what they thought of tiie idea. They waved it aside as not worth bothering about. "Suit 'The Times' "that, wouldn't it?" asked one, with a sneer. "We haven't time to talk about " it." said another, impatiently. "Let's "weep to business," the business being, as the wrote afterwards, to refuse to allow hospitals and children's relief organisations to have the coal they sorely needed. Only one member of the executive met the proposal with a reasonable objection, that the merchants would not supply the union with coal. The others apparently regarded the idea as quite outside the range of practical trade unionism, l'erbaps it will go home to strikers some day that part, at least, of the enormous eums 'lost in wages and strike pay might be devoted to showing the world that a trade

union can manage a business, and to testing tho soundness ot the theory that the capitalist is a greedy creature. If the union can undersell the capitalist it will have all the public support it needs. But we are afraid that too many leaders of the Labour movement are both unable and unwilling to go beyond talking and arranging strikes.

H>kl wo thought that the howling mob who denied Mr Fisher the right to speak in his own electorate were merely Red Fods., we should not have considered the incident worth notice. But the official organ ot the "Liberal" Party is at pains to claim for "Liberalism" :ts shun; of the credit for the outrage. AYe cannot in our poor -words convoy a proper idea ot its ecstasy of delight and thanksgiving. "I he consequences." it says, "will be far-reach-ing." and it goes on to anticipate the suggestion that «he howls and hoots proceeded only from Red Fed. throats. But the Retorm journals which may make this suggestion, it explains, will be wrong —any suggestion that the "Liberals" were not, parties to the triumph of animal uoiso will be nothing Mil 'the raving of infuriated losers. *

Wβ need hardly cay that we are ■tbltze-J to this candid organ of • Lberal- :- ism" for making quite* clear a point upon "which mistakes would jbviously have been mnde. Jt is as well to know, on .in authority which cannot be questioned; that the "Liberal" Party has thus definitely made a fresh beginning with the policy of preventing tree speech. Nobody ought really to bo much surprised. Most of the speeches and writings of the Opposition apologists have merely been different vaneties of hooting. And when Mr Massey was honied down in Christchurch, it must be remembered, the "'Liberals'' were delighted. The Reformers will certainly not complain of "Liberalism's' , obliging revelation of its character and methods. The consequences, as the Opposition pnper snys, will be far-reaching. But thry will not be consequences, it need not he pointed out, which our "Liberal" friends imag-

The "Timaru Post," which, since a recent rearrangement of its affairs, has evidently been directed to mend its ways, lias ha , ! a bad relapse into pure "Liberalism." On Thursday it said: — ■'Mr Massey declared at Blenheim that if Mr Allen had not gone to London to interview the big money-lenders personally, there would have been no money available, and the Dominion would have had to 'close down , on March 31st " This is a very gross fiction. Mr Massey said nothing of the kind. The "Post" foolishly copied a couple of fie-

tions in the local organ of the anti-l?e----formers, and of these we would say a word or two. The Press Association report of Mr Masscy's speech w;u, manifestly very defective in parts, and our contemporary seized upon its perversions of Mr Masscy's words as the foundaticn for some criticism. Tho Prime Minister, for example, was represented as faying "supply and demand raise the rate of interest," and everyone but a few "Liberals" know that Mr Maesev had obviously been saying that tho demand for money had raised the rate of interest in London prior to the break. This is a minor perversion, however, although it is something new in journalism in this country to simulate ignorance and to make tfle Prime Minister responsible for the peccadilloes of the man who misreports him.

But less unimportant is the statement upon which the indiscreet Timaru journal based its gross fiction. Mr Massey, his original critic observed, was a reckless fool because ''he told his audience that if Mr Allen had not succeeded by his own personal efforts in getting the money he required at the beginning of last year 'the country would have had to close down on March 31st.' " Mr Maesey'.* critic knew, of course, that Mr Massev lad said nothing of the sort. It had not even the excuse that it was correctly quoting the muddled report ol the Pres Association, which mado no reference whatever to Mr Allen's ''own personal efforte." The fuller report of the speech printed by the "Evening Poet" makes clear tho extent of the Opposition critics' misrepresentations. Mr Massey, according to this report, "pointed out that when tho Government took office it was faced with a rise in the price of money, which was brought about by demands on tho money market coming in from all parts of the world." As to the other point, Mr Massey said:—"They had sent the Minister Home to raise the money, and he raised it: but if ho had not done so the public works would have had to closo down." Clearly, something very different from what the Press Association report said. "We only note these matters by way of illustrating how 'iesperately gravelled for matter the anti-Reform critics nre nowadays.

The distressing mental lapse experienced by a member of the Maw.son Antarctic expedition reminds us that the toll of the Polar regions is not confined to accident and starvation. Tho appalling monotony of tho Polar regions, combined with extreme cold and other hardships, constitutes a peril to the minds of explorers, the extent of which the public hardly realises. A member of tho Shackleton expedition took his life shortly after he returned. One of the men on the Terra Nova developed mental weakness on the run Home. Probably in the long list of Polar explorations other similar cases could bo adduced. And reading accounts of life in the Arctic and the Antarctic the wonder is that so many men come out of their experiences mentally unscathed.

Most people in New Zealand—even those who realise how easily people in other countries may be misled by gross fictions concerning these islands and the Government—will merely shrug their shoulders when they hear that Mr Semple has been saying in Sydney that, in its treatment of "the-work-ers," the Massoy Government was "worse than Botha in South Africa." In a speech reported in the "Barrier Daily Truth." Mr Semple said that "immediately they (the Wellington watersiders) took action, tho Government issued a warning to farmers, took the hooligans and criminals from gaol, and gave them the badges of special constables. Clubs and revolvers were issued to them. Twenty thousand of these creatures were sent against the workers." Everybody will reflect, of course, that a cause which produces men who must talk like that, must, in the nature of things, be hopelessly bad. But before dismissing Mr Semple from their thoughts, we would have the public reflect upon this fact—that the extreme language used by Mr Semple is the measure of ■ the liberty which the Government, by its coolness, courage, and thoroughness, has secured for the , community. So that Mr Somple has hie uses, after all.

The pleasure of the picture-show public is being paid for in human life. The death in East Africa of a member of a cinematograph expedition from injuries received from a lion while trying to photograph it, leads a writer in the "Westminster Gazette" to point out that seven lives have been lost in cinematograph work. Recently a performer was killed by a maddened bull in a production dealing with the adventures of a toreador, and four tragedies have occurred in the enactment of sensational water scenes. What makes work in or on tbe water particularly dangerous is that the real peril of the performer may bo regarded by the operator as merely part of the drama. In at least three cnse& the straggles of peoplo who were leally drowning were thought to bo dever pieces ot acting, and the operators went on turning their handles while 'ire was slipping away. The writer in the "Westminster," himeeU' a cinematograph actor, declares th:«t '•personal danger is not recessary to the representation ot any well-pro-duced picture, whether scenic, dramatic, or humorous. Realistic stage effects can be gimed with no more risk to life and limb than that associated with theatrical production." We hope iiiis is so, but eve , * if it is, it will haidly stop soit-e manufacturers of films from asking performers to undergo risks, and the performers from taking them.