WHO ARE THE BOLSHEVISTS?

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXVII, Issue LXXVII, 30 May 1919, Page 4

WHO ARE THE BOLSHEVISTS?

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l am disappointed in - Dean Power With due deliberation he criS ewes the English Prime Minister and his economic statements in a most objectionable style, and when I rebut the criticism he claims to be counted as ?J£* Of Mf. fI L1 + °yd Urge's admirers (with, qualifications, of course). We will shake hands on that concession at Stfui his reply " decidedly (1) Dividing my leading sentence, he denies having represented Mr LloyU George -as an ally of ducal coalmvners." Well, is it a far-fetched interence from tnis statement: "Who are the Bolsheviks—the Dukes or the toilers. It would appear that Mr George thinks the latter are and not the former." Elsewhere Mr George is stated to be a "tool of profiteers" (i.e., of "Dukes and' noblemen ). He also is stated to threaten the miners, and to enable'the "prohteer to grin at the toiler." It is to be noted that the latter part of my leading sentence is unchallenged. The Dean does not deny having represented the Premier as "an enemy of the miner." .And I repeat: "Such a picture has absolutely no relation to the facts." It is untrue. •> (2) My statement that "the Dean suppresses all reference to Mr George's remedies for discontent" i§ not* "incorrect." (I certainly hold ihat "not to mention" the remedial measures eniployed was—under the contextual circumstances—"to suppress them.") His only reference to Lloyd 'George's remedy insinuated that it consisted* of a starvation threat. The Dean did—not either refer to concessions made and accepted, or to "the. Coal Commission*' in particular as constituting. Mr L. George's remedy. And it was only by referenced to an English file that I discovered -the extent of the Government's concessions to the miners. I question whether they appeared in the local press. (3) "I have not condemned Mr Lloyd George," writes the Dean, only | "particular statements" of his. Well, your readers shall judge. I refer them to the quotations in (1) Mr L. : George is also 6tated to have used "portentious words" and to have made an ' 'iniquitous threat.'' His - words have a "terrible significance"—one ! phrase alone "damns him as a.respon- " sible statesman." He is twice; described as "foolish." In a vicious sugges-■ tion "that the Government still con- ! trols the nation's food* as a weapon : against the strikers" he is aiming deliberately at the Premier, as the clos- | ing sentence of the i paragraph makes i indisputably evident. If such state- ! ments were true, the Premier would be immediately driven out of office. 1 (4) I maintain that the Dean lias skilfully formulated a grave indictment against a man who lias saved the Empire from -the Germans, at a moment wh^en he r is engaged in.) res-^ i cuing Britain from industrial peril and threatened , chaos. It- is a disservice to the Empire, There are statei ments in the Dean's letters that do not seem quite fair. He asserts, e.g., that the portentious words of the Pre~ . mier's were used "as an argument against the miners' proposal of less work," etc. Actually they were used I against a threat to strike, which, ac- ! cording to the London correspondent of the Maoriland Worker, "might easily •have meant a stoppage of government, in the present sense, in this country."-.:/ '^.;;;rv ■^H/• :7^V/ -hz Other statements do' not suggest ; either a sound or-an iinbiassed judgj ment, as e.g., the denial that a general stoppage of the mines would ruin; the export trade in coal (as Mr Lloyd George,. affirmed). And the. readiness to view with unconcern the almost entire loss of Britain's import and export trade. Nor can I forget the mad proposal that England should (in practical effect) close her factories and flood her mines, in ..order to put the yeoman back on the land aiKlv enable Englishmen to grow all the wheat they require." I have already challenged the! reliability of some stateI ments. There ara> others^ e'.g;, (a)^ "That half the agricultural land of England is lying idle in. -the hands of profiteering noblemen." (Unless ; the word agricultural is inserted the critir; cism has no point, and if it is inserted* the statement is not accurate.) (b) Presumably because; ecclesiastics are not admitted to the Peace Confer^ ence, we are told that the "aid of God w^s not invoked." Yet no one in Europe is: more likely to invoke God's aid in the Peace Conference deliberations than are President Wilson, and Mr Lloyd George, the Welsh Baptist" Prime Minister.- - Lastly, I still consider Mr L". 'George's threat "necessary' and just". lin the light of present knowledge. "If," declared Mr Bonar Law, "the .miners strike' against the community,

the Government —and no Government could do otherwise—will use all the re- ! sources of the State without the ! smallest hesitation." .And I say to the Deanjthat if any "other section of the community" acted in a .similar manner it would have t<> he treated similarly. There is no parallel between , the: case of the Roman Empire and that under consideration. The English people have willed the food to be held ; by the Government during a tern- ! porary and abnormal situation. Only a few days ago the, Food Controller told Parliament tyiat operations would i cease in November, whereupon Mr i Clynes (Labor leader) urged the' "rei tention of some form of food control to protect the people against trusts and combines." To write, therefore, "history tells us that food in the hands of the Government is fatal, or at best a menace' to liberty," is a ' general statement of no value in our ; discussion. Present-day history has ,proved that, in certain circumstances, the control of the food by the Government is absolutely necessary to the preservation of liberty. The Dean seems to forget that, in England at any rate, all -peril has not yet passed. I believe in JUr Lloyd George, and have nothing to withdraw or even modify.—l am, etc., A LLOYD GEORGETTE.