LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 320, 6 October 1908, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

LABOUR MATTERS. Sir, —A leader in your issue of September 23, dealing with the indignities of labour, is remarkablo for an assertion based on ■ a trivial occurrence that happened among the tvorkors of a South Island coal mine. This has been quite enough to prove to you that the whole of the labourers in this country are in a dangerous state of revolt. This assertion is surely not borne out by fact. It only proves again what wo are always experiencing, that newspapers delight in making much out of little. You might be ablo to dip well into the future, or to review the past as fairly as a' party newspaper is able to, but to place before us the true position of labour to-day is not tho policy of The Dominion. You see a grave danger where no danger exists, but possibly yon have the faculty of second-sight which others do not possess, which reveals evils only to those so specially gifted. I think, perhaps, your antagonism to anything for. tne good of labour is strengthened by your extreme hatred to socialism, which hatred blinds you to seeing any good in organised labour. Do you really think our forefathers would view with horror itho attitude of labour today towards employment, or do you not think they would 'view'with delight the labourer's efforts, in spite of extreme opposition, to better his position? You would proclaim from the house-tops the need and ■wisdom of self-reliance. This is a'doctrine labour has been preaching for years—outside their own workers . labour expects no sympathy, nor seeks it.' They rely on their own strength. Individual self-reliance the worker knows, is useless, and it is only by combination of their own forces that labour hopes to obtain their desired goal. Every concession granted to labour has been conceded through combined effort, _ and to go back to your pet theme of individual selfreliance would bring about your desired end, and reduce labour again to the good old days of our forefathers. Can you tell mo what labour has to recommend that men should accept it gratefully, and view with pride a system that labour will break down as surely as it exists, If the State were the employer it would not only be a thankful task to labour, but a privilege and delight. But a . system that increases the riches of tho rich and the anxieties and miseries of the poor, will always provoke a feeling of revulsion against labour. You would allow all men tho unrestricted right of accumulation, but that right the labourer is forbidden. The monied classes keep their wealth in ' their own hands, and regulate industries and control commerce always with a view to keeping the labourer in his position, by kindly allowing in exchange for his labour his right to exist. I view with much satisfaction. the dissatisfaction of the workers. It is this feeling of unrest and discontent—the demand for the rights of; labour—that has set legislation moving in the direction of slowly bringing about better conditions. It is the knowledge of their own strength and combined, power and intellect that will force', capital from ite domineering position, thus compelling the State to bo the rightful employer of labour. ' I am, etc., , A CITIZEN. September 30.

[Our socialist _ correspondent credits us with powers which we do not possess, and' with views which we do not hold. Not'one word have we written against the right of labour to legitimately endeavour to better its position, either in the matter of wages or as to the conditions of work. We have assailed, and will continue to do so, ' the foolish methods of a section of labour leaders; their fostering of strife between employer and worker; their refusal, to recognise that they as well as the employers must be bound by; the industrial laws of, , the country; their blind disregard of recognised economic laws. These- are the things we have attacked—theso are the things labour should call tho groat bulk of its leaders to task over.]