BRITISH MINERS' FUND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19452, 7 October 1926, Page 8

BRITISH MINERS' FUND.

Sir, —When your correspondent, Mr. J. S. Montgomerie, says the Welfare League "has made charges against the Labour Party which, if proven, would bo sufficient to land us in gaol." he is simply showing his disregard for exact truth. The league has made no such charges. He asks us to present evidence "that Soviet Russia contributed funds to foment revolution in England." Here is some, though much inoro might bo added. It is accepted by the British Labour Party that the Communist International has supplied the British Communist Party with funds for revolutionary work in Britain. Documents were produced in the trial of 12 Communists (sent to gaol) which proved that beyond question. In the House of Commons the Home Secretary stated, "His Majesty's Government is satisfied that the Soviet Government waived the regulations for the export of money in order ti enable the All Russian Central Council of Trade Unions to transmit certain funds to this country in aid of the general strike. The first sum of £26,427 was refused by the Trades Union Congress." Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald, when Premier in October, 1924, wrote: "No one who understands the constitution and the relationship of the Communist International will doubt its intimate connection and contact with the Soviet Government." Trotzky and other Soviet leaders have declared that the general strike can only bo regarded as an instrument of revolution. Such facts, we submit, amount to "positive evidence." Your correspondent asks if the miners' fight is not proof of their solidarity ? It is, but does not prove that such solidarity is based on individual assent. A recent district ballot of miners gave a majority of 3 to 1 for returning to work. We make no insinuations against the British worker in comparison with American, or any other. The fai\lt is not on the British worker, but on the Socialist theorists who are misleading him with false doctrines of politick catch words which are destructive of industry. The fact remains that to get high wages there must be large output from which to pay them. Professor Murphy, before the Workers' Educational Association, put it succintly thus: "Productivity is the fundamental determinant fo real wages." With reference to mining profits and wages in New Zealand let us say to Mr. Montgomerie that wo are not immediately concerned in the subject, as wo are not out to defend the mineowners, or any other sectional interest. When we wish to study tho question we shall require more than ex parte figures. It is true that mining profits in Britain were high at war time. So, also, were miners' wages. Profits have been reduced almost to vanishing and the Samuels Commission, which your correspondent thinks we have ignored, recommended reduction of wages. Tho coal industry will have to be reorganised, but it is nonsense to think the people are clamouring for State control. In the end the practical men in the industry will have to do the job. What a reactionary your correspondent is to think that industry can be run successfully by politicians, commissions and other extraneous authorities. We advise him to read up Henry Ford. Coming back to striko funds. Surolv it is the most stupid form of benevolence ever thought of to pay money into a strike fund on a losing cause. What does it. mean ? The longer the strike continues the more workers are involved and the greater the amount of wages lost. So you pay monej to raise the miners' wages by a process of losing more wages thau can ever bo made up. What a fool's game it all is. We say this in pity, because there are so many good fellows who are involved in this hopeless reactionary and conservative system of strike. N.Z. .Wkleaub LXAGUB.