TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 24, 29 January 1912, Page 6

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

m During last year a correspondent of The Post expressed n Hours and hope that Parliament the Man. would furnish a statutory bolution of the " cost of living " problem. The writer j seemed to genuinely believe that by a "Be it enacted," in all proper form, with the Governor's signature on tho King's behalf, the worries of the workaday week would cease. That correspondent will havt his hope revived by a cable message from Sydney to-day. It is reported that the "Labour Conference nas adopted a resolution in favour of the introduction of a Bill providing for a six-hours day, and fixing the pay of unskilled labourers at ten shilling*, a day." Parliament can order such a regime, but cannot necessarily reduce the cost of living by such an order. Cutting two hours off the eight-hour working day means, roughly, a twontyfive per cent, reduction in the output of goods (unless there is a speeding-up during the six hours worked or an improved rate of output by new machinery or other causes). If 'lift Workers produce less, there will be less for them to get as their share of the bartnerehip of Labour*' and Capital. Parliament can'order the minimum wage of unskilled* workers to be 10s a day, but Parliament cannot order the 10s of such a* " six-hour ten-shilling " system to buy as much as 10s of to-day. " Cost of living," as wo remarked last week, is much contused with "cost of gold," and also with, "standard of living." If a man cuts down his needs, or his fancied needs, he can proportionately reduce his hours of toil. However, the complicated modem society is not yet prepared for the economic disturbances which a widespread popularity of "the simple life," solidly simple, would involve. A six-hour day would dislocate industry throughout Australia or New Zealand. New Zealand's "Red Flag Society" has served The Post with Seeing "Red." a summons enclosed in an envelope of direful blood-colour. It is a mandate ' over the hand and seal of Mr. P. H. Hickey, of the 'Maoriland Worker office, calling upon ue, indirectly, to show cause why we adversely criticised the manifesto issued on Saturday by the New Zealand Federation of Labour, which, as Mr. Hickey reminds us, is out for "revolution," according to Webster's definition of tne word. Our readers will see from Mr. Hickey*s droll and breezy statements that we are charged with "hysterical outburst " and a " hurricane of words and wild generalities." Those who read the manitesto and our comment will note the dry humour of Mr. Hickey's remark. It is waggish ; we suspect that one hand smothered a smile while the other one penned those phrases for the red envelope. Having made one stood joke, Mr. Hickey was in the mood for more. Therefore he declares that the crimson manifesto of' the Federation of Labour to the tramway men is not an act of interference, but an offer of assistance ; it is not* six, but half a dozen { it is not Tweedledum, but Tweedledee. It reminds us of the defence set up by an accused man in the local Magistrate's Court a few weeks ago. He was charged with assaulting somebody with an axe, and his explanation of a very severe cut was that the other person had pushed himself against the weapon. Mr. Hickey, who has gone to Webster for his definition of "revolution," may as well go to the same authority for "interfere." Webster gives ac one lino for "interfere ": — " To enter into, or take a part in, the concerns of others ; to intermeddle; to interpose." One of Web-etei-'s definitions of "interpose" is: — "To step in' between parties at variance." If the Federation has not interfered in the tramway dispute it has interposed ; and if it has not interposed it has interfered. Mr. Hickey is free to take hiu choice. In his reference to our description of some passages of the manifesto as "comically scurrilous," Mr. Hickey makes m start & oMtiw &U3M& 9l tk

difference between tlie City Council and the Tramway Union. We do not,bolieve that his rhetoric about "justice" will delude the public for one moment. For its own purposes the Sydney Daily a tt t - Telegraph uses New An Unfair Zealand as a missile to Gibe. throw at the Commonwealth's Premier, Mr. Fisher, who is eager to see some form of working partnership between the two countries. "The New Zealanders' attitude," remarks the Telegraph, "suggests the iciness of the worker who has been offered an Irish rise in the shape of a reduction in wages. . . In their contemptuous indifference, is tt ingratitude these islanders display or a sense of humour?" Such cynicism is lamentably unfair to Mr. Fisher, particularly as the gibe has not truth as its warrant. So far as we have been able to discern from comments in the> I press of the four centres, New Zealanders are nob "contemptuously indifferent" to Mr. Fisher's overtures of goodwill. Certainly the people show no sign that they desire a formal federation with the Commonwealth, but we believe that all thoughtful members of tho New Zealand community wish for an improvement in the friendly relations between the two countries. Mr. Fisher has heartily expressed his willingness to do a statesman's work for the good of Australasia, even if his ideal of a close federation cannot be realised, and for this willingness he deserves the praise of the people on each side of the Tasman Sea. We are suro that Mr. Fisher's words have already done much good. They have been given with a warmth which must have thrilled many thousands. He has made it plain that it will not be his fault if the neighbourly relations of the two countries are not bettered for mutual benefit. New Zealanders have no "iciness" for Mr. Fisher to thaw.