THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, OCT. 26th, 1916. FREEDOM AND COMPULSION.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VI, Issue 266, 26 October 1916, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, OCT. 26th, 1916. FREEDOM AND COMPULSION.

While here in New Zealand our Legislature has, if, as some of us think, a. little dilatorily, still with but negligible opposition, placed us in the position to bring compulsory service into operation, only those who have the opportunity to see and read Australian daily newspapers can have any remote conception of the regrettable, and indeed disgraceful, turmoil which has been occasioned by the decision of the Commonwealth Cabinet to submit the question to a popular referendum. The reports of proceedings at public meetings, convened for the purpose either of supporting or opposing the proposal, make but sorrowful reading for those who realise all that is at stake, as much, if not more, for the class from which the chief body of obstructionists is drawn as for any other. There can be but two explanations of the attitude that these malcontents adopt—either they are quite oblivious of what a German triumph will mean to themselves and their fellow-citizens, or else they are under the hypnotic influence ci definitely pro-Gertnan agencies. On their side the campaign is being conducted on the exaggerated lines of a purely local party contest, entirely without the serious dignity with which a question so vital should be approached, and will all the blare and bluster, and even physical intimidation, of a hot political fight. That the numerical strength of the opposition—and numbers count for everything—is not to be disregarded is shown by the intensity with which the supporters of the principle of universal service have deemed it necessary to throw themselves into what is nothing short of a _ battle royal, and by the space which all the daily journals of repute devote to instilling into the people some adequate idea of their responsibilities. Among those who are writing on the question, we should imagine effectively, is Professor R. F. Irvine, of Sydney University. There are now before us two articles of his, directed to showing that there can he no such thing as freedom for a community unless some substantial measure of compulsion is exercised over the individual, and that the present emergency is one which preeminently demands that such; a measure should be taken. He points out the inconsistency of that section of the Labour Party—for it is only a section, even if in numbers it may prove to be a strong one —which has hitherto sought to impose, and succeeded in imposing, all manner of compulsory measures upon all purely in what it has considered its own material interests, yet now resents the suggestion that the same doctrine should be applied when the national life of the whole community is threatened. “This class,” he says, “demands ‘laissez-faire’ for itself and compulsion for other classes —which was precisely the position taken up by the ‘privileged’ classes a hundred years ago.” Professor Irvine apparently hopes by adducing some concrete example to bring home to these workers’ minds the falsity of the contentions they seek to maintain. He writes: At ono time employers commonly neglected to provide for the hea th and safety of workmen in factories. To do so involved cost and trouble, and, in anv case, the workmen were free to refuse the contract of employment under such conditions. This was the old do-as-you-please which a considerable nurpber in Australia are now trying to revive in a new form. But humane people began to see through the sophistries of the argument used to maintain the employer’s liberty to do entirely as he pleased with “his own.” Presently a majority of people in Parliament adopted the new way of looking at the employer’s “right,” and laws were passed restricting this “right” and enforcing better couditions. Obedience was compulsory. The old-time employer grumbled; he did not like it; but he had to obey the social will. No class since then has ever seriously questioned the wisdom of compulsion in such a case. Why? Because, in time, it was universally recognised as necessary in the common interest.