Thening Post. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1925. INDEMNITY AGAINST LOSS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 31, 5 August 1925, Page 4

Thening Post. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1925. INDEMNITY AGAINST LOSS

Mr. Churchill is said to have been emphatic throughout the negotiations with the mine-owners "that the Government had no intention of giving the industry a blank cheque," but if he -were asked even now to name the limit of the nation's liability he would probably find it no easy task. In the course of these negotiations the Government has been compelled to do several things which it had no intention of doing, and in spite of Mr. Churchill's brave talk this inconsiderable trifle of a blank'cheque may be one of them. No official estimate of the liability is yet forthcoming, but we were told on Monday that as the industry had lost a million and a half in June, v"it is assumed that the subvention will cost the Government from ten millions to twelve millions." This is calculated on the basis of a nine months' term, and the actual amount will depend on the course of trade between August and May.' In the last stages of the negotiations the Government was, we are told, "greatly influenced by the fact that if the mines were not kept going the country would be forced to pay many millions in poor relief." From this point of view the matter may be considered to be as broad as it is long. Why should not an ailing industryhave its dole as well as the unemployed labourer? From the worker's standpoint it may be reasonably argued that it is a good arrangement, since the indirect assistance which he will thus receive will be free from the demoralising effects of a direct dole. It is certainly infinitely better from this point of view to give a man work and pay him more than it is worth than to pay him for doing nothing. It must, on the other hand, be borne in mind that demoralisation of labour is not, the only kind of demoralisation to be considered. Capital is not exempt from liability to the same infection. The mine-owners are' being indemnified against loss in an industry which they declare it impossible to carry on at a profit. Having secured this immunity from the State for the coming nine months, will they be in any better mood than the.men for facing the inevitable and dispensing with State aid at the end of the term ? Is it not more probable that, in the face of employees who will be encouraged by this victory to present a stiffer front than ever, they will find in the temporary grant of a special privilege a good reason for extending it? And is it not likely that other embarrassed industries will be induced by this precedent to press for similar favours? What the "Morning Post," contemplating " the problem from another angle, says of it applies to this aspect of the case also:— To-day it is the mines; to-morrow it may be the railways; then the docks, or the iron, steel, or shipbuilding works. In each case there will be the same temptation to patch up an industrial truce at the cost of the taxpayer. "The party of the third part" is not directly represented on these occasions. His burden steadily grows, and nobody can say where the process is to end. That the inevitable tendency of the Government's action is towards the Socialists' goal of nationalisation seems to be beyond question. The burden of the taxpayer will be increased still further and the advance towards this undesired goal will be accelerated if the Government's undertaking is to apply to pits that have been closed. There are 508 of these pits, and the first cabled comments on the settlement showed that their position had been discussed, but; the decision w.ig left in doubt. To-day the authoritative sLaleinenb is reported "that the collieries already closed will be included in the Government's subsidy scheme if the owners decide to reopen them." If, as appears to be the case, these mines w.erc excluded from tho unofficial estimate of the Government's liability as from tea to twelve millions, this limit ma}- be, yguuijkr_»]?.]£ exceeded.

But to-day's report tells us no more than that an immediate vote of £10,000,000 is expected, with the understanding that more money will be voted if it proves to be necessary. Two interesting comments on the settlement from opposite standpoints are reported to-day. Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald lays less stress on the victory of the miners than on the abject surrender of the Government.' Had the Government fought out their policy to a finish, "one would,", he says, "have respected them," but instead of that "they doubled up." They arrived, he considers, at "a sound conclusion, but by an abominably bad way." The one grain of comfort in Mr. Mac Donald's remarks is his attribution of the Government's collapse to a very rare combination, "the unusual unity of the Trades Union movement and the still greater unity of public opinion behind the men." If public opinion was really the stronger force of the two there ia still a power in reserve which may prevent " the Royal Commission's decision from being made a dead letter by the Miners' Federation if it is not a hundred per cent, in their favour. The "Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung" takes the same view of the Government's weakness as Mr. Mac Donald, and asks "if Mr. Baldwin is willing to subsidise all British industries and transform them into State pensioners"—a very pertinent question. Equally pertinent is its statement that "one-third of the coal produced in the world cannot be used," and •that this fact must be grasped before a solution is possible. The Government will have time to consider the problem internationally as well as domestically during the breathing-space it has secured.