Evening Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1936. THE FRENCH KALEIDOSCOPE NO EQUALISATION IN MINING

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 23, 28 January 1936, Page 8

Evening Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1936. THE FRENCH KALEIDOSCOPE

NO EQUALISATION IN MINING

itance has found a new Government headed by M. Sarraut, of the Radical-Socialist Party; but the mere formation of a Ministry does not mean that the political crisis is over. It may be only beginning. Until M. Sarraut meets the Chamber it is impossible to foretell what will be his fate. In June, 1935, France repeated the rapid changes of Government which it had witnessed in 1925-26 until M. Poincare gave leadership and stability. A check to changes was made in 1935 not by the discovery of leadership and stability, but by resort to M. Laval and compromise. The Doumergue Government of all parties fell when it attempted in quite the wrong way to grasp the nettle of constitutional reform. The Flandin Government lasted only seven months, though M. Flandin came with his arm in a sling to make a heroic defence of his request for. dictatorial powers. M. Bouisson was defeated almost as soon as he met the Chamber. Then the Chamber, having apparently satisfied itself that it had vindicated its rights, gave to M. Laval the power to rule by decree—exactly the same power that it had refused to M. Flandin and M. Bouisson.

The Laval Government held office for seven months of great difficulty and stress. Except when the Chamber was in recess the Government was constantly in danger. Yet it emerged from crisis after crisis, and fell finally without being defeated in the Chamber because the Radical-Socialists withdrew their members from the Ministry. This withdrawal has not been sufficiently explained. It was not prompted by any desire for office. The Socialists state that "no one is particularly anxious to clean up the financial mess that Laval left behind," and their willingness to undertake this task is probably less now than it was last year because the election is so much nearer. It seems, in fact, as if the Radical-Socialists, wishing only to get under cover before the election and to escape the defeat anticipated at the hands of the electors for M. Laval and all his colleagues, have had their hand forced. They sought to shuffle off the blame which might fall to them as partners with M. Laval in a composite Government. Now they must either prove that 'a Radical-Socialist.Gov-ernment'can do better or risk the fate of a Government which will, as the last Government before the election, feaar the accumulated sins of itself and its predecessors.

As we have said, however, the Sarraut Government may be speedily defeated. There is nothing in its composition which entitles it to a greater measure of confidence than M. Laval enjoyed. M. Flandin, as Foreign Minister, will be pro-British and may do better than M. Laval who, according to "Pertinax," made the mistake of trying too long to be both pro-Italian and pro-British. M. Regnier continues as Minister of Finance, and is tied to a policy of supporting the franc though he may modify the deflationary measures which M. Laval sought to introduce. But he has no ready-made and certain plan for setting the finances in order, and, the Government being without the support of the Right, may be embarrassed by financial nervousness and a renewed flight of gold. With such conditions it appears improbable that the Sarraut Government will do more than continue a precarious existence until the elections, if until then.

There is just one hope—that the movement towards

reform of which intelligent observers have seen the beginning may be accelerated by threats of a new political crisis. The movement began when M. Doumergue, without the power or the energy, appealed to the people over the heads of the deputies and was promptly dismissed by the deputies. "Calling M. Doumergue's bluff" was Alexander Werth's description of the incident. But it did not end the movement. One member of the Doumergue Government, M. Andre Tardieu, refused to be associated with further combinations of parties and denounced the whole spirit of French Parliamentary Government. He declared that Fiance needed a new spirit and that the electors must place national before individual interests. >

Public education, fortified by example, he said, has created the belief that the citizen has the right to expect everything from, the State by the intermediary of elected persons. .. . You must recover and accept the motion of sacrifice which you have lost for fifteen years. The hour has come, if France is to live, to put spiritual values in the first place, and remember that we have very few rights in exchange for many duties.

This is the remedy that has been prescribed again and again by observers such as Paul Einzig (who says devaluation alone cannot save France) and Sisley Huddleston. The urgency of the need has been demonstrated recently by the clash of leagues,and the recurrence of political crises, threatening even the continuance ,of Parliamentary Government.

The old political conceptions, the absence of a unifying spiritual purpose, make it difficult for France to enjoy good finances, good foreign policy, good government, and to take a positive attitude on any subject, to do more than submit to events in regard to which she has lost all initiative. Yet something is stirring under the surface of the confused manifestations which will , -perhaps bring back to France moral supremacy in Europe. She will not be content with a negative attitude watching passively the dynamism of other nations; but will, possessed by an idea-force, again take her traditional leadership.

Have events reached that stage when this spiritual revival can come; or must the crisis become even more threatening before France saves herself?

Coal strike clamour is not to break the hush of the Royal obsequies, British owners and miners having reached a settlement. "Speaking as an owner of coal mines," the Marquess of Lothian recently made a statement (reprinted in yesterday's issue) which, while ex parte, reviews British collieries problems in a sufficiently broad spirit to convey to the reader a clear idea of their character. He points out in the first place that coal mining (in fact, all mining) belongs to the extractive industries. An owner who mines coal or iron or gold does not buy raw material from someone and give it an added value by treatment, as the average manufacturer does. The owner of a mine takes from the ground his raw material—the price he pays is the cost of getting it out—and. he does not replace it. His raw material is therefore a vanishing asset. One mine owner pays more than another pays for his raw material—that is to say, mining costs vary widely. A high mining cost may be due to inferior plant, inferior management, or insuperable natural difficulties; or to any two of these, or to all three. It is possible to imagine all the coal mines as being in the ownership of a beneficent owner (say, the State) or of an owner both beneficent and economic (such as might be found in some exceptional committee of experts). In that case, would the wise and well-wishing owner work only the most efficient mines? That would mean, the Marquess replies, more unemployment and more derelict areas. Would he, then, work the fully economic (mines full time and work the other mines when their • product is saleable? That would mean perpetuating the evil of intermittent employment complained of under the present system. As the Marquess puts it:

Under the present conditions of the coal markets there can either, be full employment for the few or partial employment for the many.

Suppose, then, that the wise benefactor extended his influence to the markets, and took steps to raise the price,of coal. He would be in a clash with another unfortunate — the consumer—but probably not for long, as the markets can turn to various substitutes for coal and coal power. By following the Marquess of Lothian round the circle it is possible to see how real are the difficulties of the industrial reformer. It is not sufficient to say "amalgamation" or "rationalisation." A thing counts only in the, degree that it works.