Evening Post. THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1917. KEEP THE FLAG FLYING

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 99, 26 April 1917, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1917. KEEP THE FLAG FLYING

Believing victory to be essential to freedom, we have from the outset viewed the collieries' struggle from the dominant standpoint of the successful conduct of the war. There co-exist, of course, the sectional interests of the mine-owners and the miners, and the general interest of the consuming public; but these three, which constitute in peace the major issues of an industrial strike, must in war-time take second place to the cause of the nation, for if the national fabric collapses the sectional and the consuming interests no longer count. If any proof is needed of this obvious fact, it is provided by the experience of Belgium and Northern France. These occupied territories, like the West Coast, are Largely engaged in mineral industries. In past years they have had their industrial convulsions, their struggles between miners and mineowners, their democrats#nddemagogues; bnt with the coming of the Hun all those minor sounds sank into silence. No more is the Belgian miner concerned about how long he works or in what' manner he shall work, or whether he shall receive a sovereign a day andfree coal; he is grateful to be allowed to work at all, and only too glad to escape being rounded up at the bayonet's point and deported to forced labour in. Germany. In lite manner, the Belgian mine-owner or manufacturer no longer quarrels over wages or <;ho income-tajc; he is\ a lucky person if his machinery has not followed his employees over the -'■German- frontier. As to the Belgian people, they did once have a. cost-of-liv-ing grievance, but now it is a privilege to live at all. Wellington and Westport and Greymouth have all been worried .over the price of this or that, but would those worries abide if they were squeezed for levies ranging from £100,000 to half a million, for neglecting to salute the Hun officers monopolising the doorsteps ,of the principal hotels? If only on the principle of the lesser evil—apart altogether from high patriotic motives—sectional interests should .subordinate themselves to that national cause by which, willy-nilly, they must stand or fall.

From the standpoint of th« war, therefore, w© welcome the collieries settlement. Under this settlement all the material advantages are, on the side of'the war, and we cannot see that any concessions to sectionalism go beyond the bounds of what should be—in war-time —a prudent compromise. What were the things that were undermining victory? They were: (1) the revolutionarypolitical attempt to repeal military compulsion by creating a fuel famine; (2) the industrial conspiracy to bring pressure on the public, the mine-owners, and the Government, by (a) restriction of output, (b) cessation of work. This programme throws to, the surface^ three species of strike—the political, the 'military, and the " go-slow " ; and under the settlement each and all of these are abandoned by the miners. That is to say, the miners contract to remove the menaces to the carrying-on of the warj and the Government, as an act of grace, agrees not to press for penalties in certain legal proceedings, and promises to do its best to arrange a conference between mine-owners and mijters. As we read the settlement, the Government does not contract to exert pressure on any. Court or any mine-owner. To do so in the first case would' be improper, and in the second case it is probably unnecessary; and wo only draw attention to the points in order to combat mistaken deductions. Specific performance of the miners' part of the agreement is ! already a iact (except, perhaps, at two or three mines) insofar as resumption of work m concerned j other elements—the realisation of full coal output, the convention and results of the employeremployee conference, and the action of the Courts—are still matters for the .judgment of time. No doubt the conference is an unknown quantity, but we 'believe that the settlement provides a reasonable framework for a cpmpromise that will outlast the war; and even if tho conference does not completely succeed, the resources of arbitration 1 are still not exhausted. Imperfect as arbitration is, it is, in everybody's interest, preferable to politico-industrial war. In that deplorable event, the Government simply cannot permit a fuel hold-up to continue; and we believe the miners have recognised the impracticability of the strike method as well as the unpatriotism of it. And this is a moral gain as valuable as the.material advantages accruing to New Zealand's wareffort from the resumption of the coal output. Possibly the negotiators of .tfie settlement will not escape criticism, for few 'compromises are free from critical comment; in fact, criticism'on both sides is often the best evidence that a compromise is a compromise. On the. one hand the Acting-Prime Minister, on the other hand the miners' leaders, may be accused of having given too much away. But, as already indicated, .we beb'eve that on, the'whole the balance has been reasonably held, and as.the Acting-Prime Minister has safeguarded the wao>interest, wo are not inclined to be captious as to details or as to the time and manner of his intervention. Nor do we think that the bad feeling created by the short-lived strike should be in "any; way perpetuated. There is increasing evidence that post-war industrialism will bo built up on sounder, more scientific, and j lister lines than was possible in the stereotyped world that existed prior to the shock, of July-August, 1914. The struggle for freedom, bought with the blood of all classes, lets into the "sordid materialism of commerce new spiritual lights; and the State, which is the people, may henceforth do things in tho public interest that formerly were deemud heretical or fanposjiitilei Witness, for instance, tk£ ge&epuofisijs&ti&tt

of the very English Spectator from tjio "moral narcotic'" of unbending free trade and laissez faire. " Because you cannot amend Iho law o£ supply and demand," writes the Spectator, "it does not follow that human beings are governed by arithmetical laws which cannot be altered, and which therefore relieve mankind of all obligations to control their destinies." This is the new standpoint from which after the war new social-industrial advances will be made. But, first of all, the war must be won; that is the sine qua non of all freedom, all civilisation, and all advancement. Therefore, we are glad to see that the Acting-Prime Minister laid the foundation of a compromise on the West Coast—and kept the flag flying. The occasion is not one for hysterical party cries ; but rather* for burying the hatchet, for smoking the pipe of peace, and for bracing t the muscles to that task throngh which alone the larger cause of freedom can bo served.