The Dominion FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1911. DEMAGOGUES AND CASUISTRY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1149, 9 June 1911, Page 4

The Dominion FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1911. DEMAGOGUES AND CASUISTRY.

It is impossible to feel either dissatisfied or completely satisfied with the replies of Messrs. Carroll, Millar, and Fowlds to the Trades Council deputation that asked yesterday for "concessions" to sick "workers" desirous of travelling to tne State sanatoria. We say this in no carping spirit, for while wo regiet that the Ministers did not give a filial and decisive answer they deserve credit for opposing the deputation with some very sound prinm i s 'i • is *° also that they did not deal with the very significant and objectionable suggestion of the deputation that the concessions" asked for should be supplemented by the establishment Of btate-owned boardingliouses "for the benefit of workers." The arguments of the deputation—their references to tourist "concessions" and concessions to sports parties—were easily disposed of. by Mr. Millar; but these were, of course, mere irrclcvancies hastily thought of in order to provide a semblance of clothing to hide the impudent nakedness of the demand. 'The burden of the reply given by the Acting-Prime Minister was chat the deputation's demand raised some very wide and deep general issues, and was anything but a matter for settling off-hand by an obliging affirmative. Mit. Millar went straight to the root of tho matter by asking the deputation how to define a _ "worker" for the purpose -of giving the "concessions" demanded, and a most interesting discussion ensued, with Mi:. Millar raising points that showed more and more clearly the preposterousness of the. thing that the deputation was asking, for. Mr. M'Laren said the definition was "a person in need of help, ' and when the Minister pointed out that this would mean anyone at all, another deputationlst added to. Mr. M'Laren's definition a proviso: "providing he is out of means." But already reductions arc made, said Mr. Millar, on tne production of a certificate from the Charitable Aid Board.

At this point the deputation found that it must come into the open, and coolly declared that they wanted "concession':" _ for "workers only," and made it clear that a person who merely works is not necessarily a "worker." Exactly what a "worker" is, in the eyes of the Labour agitator, may be inferred from the apparently paradoxical explanation of the leader of the deputation that "there arc thousands of employees who come under the definition of 'worker'." This implies, of course, and the speaker meant, that there are other and many more thousands of employees who do not deserve the noble name of "worker." Of course, Mr. Millar knew exactly what the deputation meant, but lie wisely decided to take a lino that would show clearly that the demand really was that the Government should so manipulate a publiclyowned service so as to "give to a certain' section of the community a privilege that was not given to every other section." The demand was one that would not be listened to for a moment in any country where sound principles are the rule, and in any other country no credit would be claimed for a Government that resisted it. In New Zealand, however, the Government is so accustomed to give way to any demand that has a sufficiency of voting-power behind it that it is almost startling .to find it standing firm upon a sound principle. It would be rash to infer that this is the beginning of a policy of resistance to the unreasonable demands of so-called Labour leaders, but we arc not on that account going to withhold from the Ministry the credit that is due to them on this occasion.

And what do the workers, what, even, do those "workers" whom the deputation profess to represent, think of the - demand professedly made on their behalf ? We cannot think that there is one decent-mind-ed worker or "worker" in New Zealand whose gorge will not rise at tho spurious "pride" of these gentlemen. _ They represented the workers as being too proud to apply for aid from public charity at the hands of the Hospital Boards, and yet not too proud or scrupulous as to refuse the same aid from public charity 'under the label of "concessions." Perhaps it is a merit in the Labour agitator that his pride and his principles are such elastic things. Mr. M'Laren was almost emotional over that fine "British trait" which "objects to receiving assistance by way of charity," but lie did not explain the mystic proccss by which charitable aid from the public purse becomes purified, and a thing one can rcccive with honour when it comes through Mr. Millar's Department. It is possible, of course, that Mr. M'Laren and the other gentleman who "would rather die a thousand deaths" than receive from the State's right hand what he would welcome coming from its left hand are perfectly aware of the unloveliness of their casuistry and their mouthings about "pride." It is possible that all they are concerned about is to establish another precedent, to push a little further the advancing frontier of trade-unionist privilege and demagogic aggression.