THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1926. COAL STRIKE OUTLOOK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19384, 20 July 1926, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1926. COAL STRIKE OUTLOOK.

— In accord, perhaps, "with the bcliel that the darkest hour is just before the dawn, it is being suggested that the British coal strike is now coming nearer a settlement. On disclosed facts there is little to warrant the belief. The miners, and especially their official spokesman, Mr. Cook, have given public indication of a desire to compromise, but all that has been said so far has been so hedged about with conditions that it is very poor evidence of settlement prospects. Hopeful possibilities can be dissipated as rapidly as they rise. A day or two ago the proposals of representative churchmen were considered the basis of hope. Now they have been rejected by the Government because of the subsidies involved, and by one great organisation of miners because they are not in tune with policy already laid down. Next has come the suggestion that a loan should be made to the industry, all parties being levied to provide interest and sinking fund. Many things in the changing situation are uncertain. Two stand out as often repeated and least likely to vary. The one is the improbability of even a modified subsidy being available for any purpose whatsoever; the other is the unlikelihood of the Government taking the initiative by proposing terms. Mr. Baldwin set a time limit on the offer of a modified subsidy. The period of grace expired. He told the parties that they must do as was done in other industries, settle for themselves conditions which affect themselves primarily. From these two positions he has not receded. No development would be more surprising than to find him doing so, after the determination he has shown not to be moved. Mr. Baldwin has been criticised for rejecting the proposals of the church leaders. It is suggested fchat the subsidy required to give effect to the plan would not be substantially greater than the sum he was previously prepared to provide. Also it is compared with the national loss involved by the continued idleness in the coalfields. Neither argument affects much the fundamentals of the present situation. A great price in money would be worth paying, and, it- may be hazarded, would not be grudged by the taxpayers, if it could bring any certainty of real peace in the industry. But, whatever the present cost of the deadlock, does it justify further dipping into the public purse merely to patch up another truce 1 When, about this time last year, the nation faced exactly the same kind of crisis as that through which it is now parsing money was found to prevent its development. Can the two parties to the dispute, the miners and the owners, show that they came any nearer together during the year of suspended hostilities 1 It is only too evident that they accepted the bounty—provided, as the Coal Commission said, by industries just as hard pressed as their own —and postponed the evil day 6i coming to grips with the difficulties of their own position. Neither has given any concrete assurance that if a subsidy enabled them to return to the old wages and conditions for a "further period of negotiation, its expiry would find them any nearer agreement. After all it was from under the shelter of the old subsidy that the miners framed their slogan, "not a cent off the pay, not a minute on the day." It was after having absorbed their share of what the Treasury provided that the owners attributed the plight of the industry to "political interference." When tens of millions paid over to prop up tottering prosperity receive the acknowledgment of a protest against political interference, Mr. Baldwin's gesture of complete withdrawal is easily understood. Apart from the attitude of the Government, the subsidy has been categorically condemned for reasons which, unfortunately, seem to apply also to the newly suggested loan. The subsidy, indeed, has been accused of acting as a positive barrier to real reorganisation. It has been suggested that, leaning on it, the mineo"wners have neglected to improve the methods of coalwinning, so

th afr technique actually suffered during its currency., It appears to have encouraged illusions, which are dangerous. There' should not be much room for when hard facts, easily ascertainable, show that the whole world market is depressed, general over-production facing a shrunken demand. That is one reason why the miners are resisting any increase in hours, rather than# lowering of wages. The eight-hours day, with the mines manned as fully as before the strike, would mean an increase in output that the market could not be expected to absorb. The owners would apply the obvious remedy, the result being, inevitably, an increase of unemployment in the mining areas. Without some lowering of the cost of production, it is difficult to see how the industry can revive. The miners have set their faces against such a reduction of wages as the coalowners have proposed ; they have long fought against any reduction, though the Coal Commission declared some to be imperative as at least a temporary measure; the miners have pronounced against the increase in hours, with the unemployment they fear will follow it. These are the elements from which there must be made a settlement by which work can resume. The hopelessness of it has kept the men out for two and a-half months, and even now, when the limits of endurance must be nearly reached, it is difficult to see the exact foundation for the optimistic predictions which are being made.