ALBERTA’S TRIAL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 22 June 1937, Page 10

ALBERTA’S TRIAL

SOCIAL CREDIT PLAN EXPLANATION BY MAJOR DOUGLAS RESPONSIBILITY DISOWNED

What he describes as “an interim survey’’ of “The Alberta Experiment” has been produced in book form by Major C. H. Douglas. His account is disappointing, except it be regarded as a justification of his coy dealings with the unfortunate Aberhart Government (says the “A.Z. Herald”). At the commencement Major Douglas leaves no doubt of the importance ho attaches to the experiment. The verdict of history, he says, will rank its significance higher “than anything which is involved in Russia, Italy or Germany.” Mr Savage and his colleagues may be interested to learn that “one £ of the more immediate repercussions (of the electoral victory of social credit in Albert) was the election of a Labour Government in New Zealand in November of the same year, relying for eletoral suppor, to a large extent, on the Douglas Social Credit movement of New Zealand, although not formally committed to its policies.” After giving an extremely sketchy account of the political scene in Canada, with particular reference to Alberta and the problem of public and private debt, Major Douglas proceeds to deal with Mr William Aberhart. The latter’s rise through a combination of “apocalyptic prophecy” and broadcast oratory is described in terms that do not serve to raise the Premier’s reputation.

BLIND LEADER OF THE BLIND

More than once Major Douglas implies that the radio prophet was aided by the malleable human material he found ready to work upon in Alberta. Thus he writes: “The character the poulation, chiefly agricultural in interest and more than one-third of it drawn from German and Ukrainian farming and peasant stocks, renders it specially vulnerable to mass agitation and more inclined to accept the printed word and the radio speech at their face value without submitting them to the more cynical criticism of Anglo-Saxon civilisations.”

The reader may reflect—unaided by the author —that here is given the reason why the poor electors of Alberta swallowed the social credit bait—hook, line and sinker. They possessed no critical faculty, were easily gullible.

As for Mr Aberhart, Major Douglas charitably points out: “It would not bo possible to claim tbat at any time tile technical basis of social credit was understood by him, and, in future, his own writings upon the subject are defective both in theory and in practicability. In fact, also, be was a blind leader of the blind, or such is the impression left by the author. But the Albertan Premier “did grasp, and his audience grasped, that in the subject of provision of effective monetary demand lay the clue to the solution ol their difficulties. Mr Aberhart pursued and popularised that subject with an energy and ability in regard to which no praise can be eveessive.”

SIMPLE PEOPLE MISSED

Again, the reader may reflect that, far from joining with Major Douglas in unstinted praise, for persuading a simple people to accept a policy which, he says, oven the leader did not understand. Of course, as the author insists, “it has (o be recognised that the correct methods of dealing with the technical problems involvcd in the attainment of the objec. tives put forward by Aberhart are difficult to bring to the comprehension of even a small number of highly educated men, chiefly because they involve conceptions with which only a small number of experts are intimately familiar.” Such being the case, the more reason why Major Douglas, the Master of the Mystery, should have helped Alberta to unfold it. A remarkable correspondence, published as Appendix 111. of this book, is apparently intended as the major s explanation of why his help was not forthcoming. It is notable that, although he knew the Albertan Government’s Treasury was empty, there being no funds at one time to pay Civil Service salaries, Major Douglas makes no bones about the lees and expenses he expects to be paid.

MAJOR DOUGLAS ASKED TO HELP

The correspondence relates to the period 24th August, 1935 (following Mr Aberh,art’s success at the polls), to 24th March, 1936. With the best will in the world, the reader of these letters and cablegrams exchanged between Premier and author may be forced to the conclusion that Major Douglas' was side-steping Mr Aberhart’s repeated invitations to “come over and help us,” or, failing that, to have from you (Douglas )as our adviser the definite outline of some course in more or less detail, showing what steps you feel we ought to take when we begin to establish social credit.”

Poor Mr Aberhart! “We are,” he writes in one letter, “for the most part unable to take any definite action for fear of running ahead of your advice, and w-> need to have definite instructions.” Later the Premier resorts to exhortation. “Now we urge you to keep steady, he writes. Detailed advice is asked for and Major Douglas asked to “Be more specific.” Actually, as the letters show, Major Douglas did offer a “specific” suggestion as his “first point.” It was that one of the banks “should credit the account if the Provincial Government with a sum of, say, five million dollars, such credit to ba free of interest 'and noil-callable, i.e., the property of the Government, and that the bank should be paid for its services one sum of, say, 11, per cent.” In other words, Mr Aberhart was to persuade one of the hanks to accept 75,000 dollars in exchange for 5,000,000 dollars, as his first move in abolishing all banks.

A SUGGESTION DECLINED

The Premier replied: “Yon have asked us to approach the banks for a credit of five to ten million dollars, with no promise to return same or pay interest on it. Our Executive Council feels that it cannot approach any bank with such a suggestion at the present time.” in view of such obstinacy, Major Douglas is enabled blithely to reply: “Until actual steps are taken to carry out the advice I have already given to you, l feel tha further advice would he useless and even presumptuous. As you quite specifically warn me with complete propriety, the responsibility for any action taken or not taken is yours, and I am merely concerned to see that, so far as is possible, the situation is widely understood.” No one. after reading the correspondence, should fail to understand. Major Douglas washes his hands of the whole wretched business, placing the onus wholly on Mr Aberhart. As for the people of Alberta, “desperate poverty at the lower end of the social scale, and economic and political insecurity among all classes ■not in actual want, is increasing.” This is Major Douglas’ description. Certainly the Alberta experiment with social credit is not a good advertisement foi the “system.” Nevertheless, the in. domitable major is not cast down. “By a process of trial and error and with more or less struggle and suffering," he concludes, “the money-changers will be cast out of the temple, and it will become impossible for human beings to starve in the midst of plenty.” It is an easy and smug conclusion—for those who do not live in Alberta.