TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 73, 27 March 1914, Page 6

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Brigadier-General Gough's extortion from . the Secretary for Optional Obedience War of a written in the Army. "assurance" —to which the Secretary added vital paragraphs without (it is alleged) the knowledge of the Cabinet — convicts the Liberal Ministers of extraordinary muddlement. The right of an officer or of a- soldier, when engaged in civil war, to disobey an outrageous order, such as a command to shoot a child, is clearly set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice Stephen, which we partly quoted the other day. But the Gough guarantee is not based on any such right. The order for the moving of the troops was in no sense outrageous, and it was disobeyed or challenged by the BrigadierGeneral and his officers merely on a presumption that something else (the use of arms against Ulster Orangemen in civil war) would ultimately follow. It is extremely doubtful whether such a presumption and such a disobedience could be justified on any grounds ; but in the present case the Cabinet agreed to condone the action of the officers on the plea that they had misunderstood the order as interpreted by the Commander in Ireland, Sir Arthur Paget. That was misunderstanding No. 1, and the con-j flicting parties agreed to take shelter behind it, to save their several faces>'Misunderstanding No. 2 in this chapter of muddlement arose when the Secretary for War, Colonel Seely, without the sanction of Cabinet, added to the written "assurance" certain paragraphs that seem to have been dictated by BrigadierGeneral Gough. The exact terms of these paragraphs is even now not quite clear, but their purport and the manner in which they were extorted from the Minister amounted to a prostration of the Cabinet under the military boot — if Cabinet endorsed them. Sir Edward Grey's lucid statement makes it clear that the Cabinet does not endorse them. At the same time, it does not accept the resignation of Colonel Seely, the blundering Minister. Two statements in j the debate stand out : Firstly, the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, said that Cabinet would never permit demands for an assurance placing Government or Parlia- j ment under the military or naval heel. Secondly, Sir Edward Grey, while stating that the need to use force in Ulster could not arise for a long time, made it clear that "the one road to a certain revolution is for the Government to allow its policy to be dictated or influenced by the politics of the officers." A case of alleged victimisation by membeis of the Wellington FurNo Right niture Workers' Union, reto Work ! ported in yesterday's Post, should have immediate study by people who do not like to see j a triumph of tyranny. A member of the union, unable to obtain employment at his trade, earned honestly a living on the wharves during the strike. Therefore a "unanimous resolution" was adopted at a meeting of the union, asksifiS M.Q JS region. The letter: pj jhe J

secretary conveying the cool request was addressed to the member as an "excabinetmaker." The- sinistur hint in that "ex" was seemingly that the man would not be allowed to work at his trade. Events subsequently proved that the secretary did pack much grim meaning into that little syllable "ex." The man, according to his statement, has benn practically forced to leave two factories in Wellington. The last employer did not meekly surrender to the dictators, but he was told that the man's name was on the black list of the Union Gazette, posted thioughout Australasia, and the factory would be black-li6ted if the employer did not exclude the name of the man wl.o had to bo denied the right to work at his trade. Hence the unfortunate marked man, to the regret of the employer, whose employees had threatened to strike, had to go into the cheerless street again. The conduct of the coercive unionists (the " master class " in this particular case), appears worse by the " explanation " of the president, Mr. D. R. Kennedy. He has tried to exonerate the union, but what is the union, if it does not consist of the members? If all the members of a union are resolved to harry a man out of work, is it any comfort to him to be told that "if any member of the union refused to work with him, that had nothing to do with the union." That sort of statement is merely humbug, especially when read with the secretary's letter, addressed to " ex-cabinetmaker." The points for the public to consider gravely, are:— (l) A cabinetmaker is condemned to lack work at his trade because he exercised a right to accept work which waterside unionists refused on 22nd October; (2) members of the Wellington Furniture Workers' Union are apparently enjoying a license, with impunity, to promote syndicalism. The Wellington strike was peculiar ; the watersiders broke their agreement wantonly, not because they themselves had grievances, but because a section of shipwrights had a dispute with employers. It was an indefensible strike, but it evidently has the "sympathy" of the Furniture Union to an extent which the public should not tolerate. About three weeks ago a delegate at a conference of the Collapse of Women's Christian Alleged Temperance Union "White Slavery." startled numbers of people throughout New. Zealand with allegations of the existence of "white slavery" in this Dominion. The Post has been able to show that the phrase, with a horrible meaning in Europe, London, and America, has been misused in these islands, where anything like the traffic of " white slavery ' is absolutely impracticable. A wave of hysteria on this subject has gone around the 'globe, and New Zealand's turn has come for the surges of sensationalism. Even in the United States, where, as we have explained, there is a recognised need for vigorous action against the vile promoters of vice, some of the best journals have been obliged to protest against the license allowed to wild hysteria-mongers, who are doing very much more harm than good. Some of the methods of the wellmeaning people are a serious nuisance to the sober, sane reformers. It would not be difficult to have a hue-and-cry raised in New Zealand for imaginary "white slave traders." Happily, the delegate who began the excitement has qualified the first alarmist words, and she has practically withdrawn the phrase "white slavery." The truth, as she now admits, is that no organised traffic exists, but " there is much disturbing evidence of procuration." There are ! attempts at seduction, of course, and various ' ' confidence tricks ' ' by villains and blackguards, but such things will happen as long as the present social system endures. There are, undoubtedly, many perils for girls, especially if they j are vain and giddy — the victims of parental folly or destructive indulgence. In Sydney Mr. D. J. Nathan has proclaimed an opinion Mr. Nathan which he either selon the Strike, fishly kept to himself or restricted to the hearing of friends for three months in New Zealand. There seems to be something in the Sydney air which opens the portals of secrecy and lets out the prisoners of the mind and heart. When Sir Joseph Ward was en route for an Imperial Conference, three years ago, he did not reveal his mind on large matters of Imperial policy till he reached Sydney. Mr. Nathan has airily dismissed the strike thus (according to a cabled report to-day) : — "The whole business was a piece of political engineering for party purposes, stage-managed with a sort of Machiavellian finesse." Mr. Nathan has, apparently, gone further than The Post in his suggestions regarding the muddlement of the Red Federal leaders. The Post was able to offer evidence that if the Socialist spokesmen had been paid organisers for the Government they could hardly have played more effectively into the Government's hands, but The Post has no knowledge that the Reform Party contributes to the "fighting fund" of the Red Federation. Is Mr. Nathan better informed? Note his use of the words "the whole business." Does he imply that the shipwrights' original dispute and sectional strike, the stop- work meeting, and the subsequent wider strike, were due to Ministerial wire-pulling and the obedient acting (mere semblance of fury) by paid puppets? We do not press the point seriously, but by the phrase "whole business" Mr. Nathan may offend the sensitive heads of the Red Federation. They will not rest under any imputation that their fiery phrases and all their roaring were "by arrangement." and that the riots of the first few days were "engineered" by their aid. Of course,, the Opposition will affect to believe Mr. Nathan's words implicitly : a politician can be more credulous than the densest Red Federal, when such all-swallowing pretence suits his electioneering book.