SKIN IRRITATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17323, 24 May 1918, Page 3

SKIN IRRITATION

KEEPS THOUSANDS AWAKE. MAKES LIFE A MISERY. Ever have any irritation of the skin? There are many forms of it. Piles, obstinate to cure. Eczema, just as bad, and just as hard to cure. But Doan's Ointment is unequalled for every irritating ekin trouble. No irritation of the skin can resist ita soothing, healing influence. Every reader of this article suffers, or has at some time suffered, with tormenting skin irritation, _ and it may return at any time. Doan's Ointment will prove its worth. Mre Maguire, Pine Hill road, Pine Hill, Dunedin, says: "Fourteen years ago I •tated that Doan's Ointment had cured me •f a rash which had broken out on my legs. Th«x cure was complete and permanent, for I am still free of this trying ailment. The rash used to be so itchy that I felt I could tear the flesh to get relief. Doan s Ointment gave me ease immediately I applied it, and a short treatment drove the -trouhle away completely. My quick and lasting cure of fourteen years has made me a firm believer in Doan's Ointment, and I always recommend it to all who suffer with any form of skin trouble. Doan's Ointment is sold hy all chemists and storekeepers at 3s per not, or will be posted on receipt of price by Foster-M'Clel-lan Co., 76 Pit't street, Sycfney. But, be sure you get DOAN'S.

Zealand clip, boon brought forward as illustrative of this belief. Indeed, so much hiirin lias been done by what 1 hope is the unfair inference drawn from ilio result of this conference, that any attempt to bring about a bettor understanding with capital is heavily handicapped while it remains. During a strike of ship loaders a year or so back I mot one evening some of the men taking part in it. I pointed out to them that circumstances connected with the waf had enhanced the valuo of their services to the State, ,>nd 1 asked them whether they thought it a fair or sporting proposition to take advantage of those circumstances in order to bargain for "higher wages and different conditions of work at the very moment it was necessary to get the meat shipped to England to 'feed the boys who were fighting for us. Tliry replied to me thus: "Circumstances have arisen through the war which have enhanced the price of wool. Do you think it a fair or sporting proposition for inert who have made much money through the increasing prico of wool, to meet together in conference, and when a good price is offered for this commodity, which trc Homo Government must have, to bargain for and obtain a higher one?" The conference will understand I am not dealing with the details of v what actually took place at the Wool Conference. I am riot competent to do that. It seems to have been a complicated business, concerning which a variety of explanations- have been given me by different people. Neither an |. I dealing with a complex question of political economy, or the counter benefit to the State through taxation on the Increased amount received. What I am doing is describing the disastrous effect the eventual result of that conference has had on efforts directed to bringing about a more sympathetic relationship between what is called "Labour" -and "Capital." For the question inevitably arises, and has been put to mc over and over again: "If it is light and proper during the war for wealthy men to negotiate and bargain- for more money, why is it wrong and improper for poorer men to do the same? To this question I have been unable to find any answer free of subterfuge or deception, and I can find none now.

Thirdly, I have found among at least three-fourths oi those Labour men whose views I have ascertained, a distinct and unmistakable desire that there should, if possible, be a saner and more sympathetic connection between employer and employed, founded on mutual respect. I am anxious to represent faithfully, and in no way to misrepresent, this feeling. There has been exhibited, of course, the natural tendency on both sides to throw tho blame on the other chap. The wealthy farmer,• or business man, for instance, has sometimes said to me: "The views of the Empire Service League are true; the country needs a movement of this kind. Now, if you can only influence the working man, you will do a fine work." And the working man has said: "Your reasoning is sound, what you point out is true. Now, if you can only get tho squatter to see and act on your views you will do some good." But beneath this tendency of Capital to blame Labour, and Labour to blame Capital, there has been marked evidence of tho inner desire for a saner and more noble relationship. Working men —including the Labour leaders mentioned just now —have said to me, in effect, this: "We understand and follow you when you declare that a man or a section of the community or a nation, stands to lose, and not ultimately to gain, by a wholly selfish aggressive policy. We agree with you there should rightly be no war between Labour and Capital, and that the two ought in truth to be married. But what does marriage spell when there is no co-operation? We do not make strikes because we like them. We do not like them. We should prefer to do without thexn. They cost us a great deal which we can ill afford. But just as this war has shown it is sometimes necessary to fight for Right, so it is necessary for us sometimes to fight for Right too—not only for ourselves but for those who come after us —and you must remember tho strike is practically tho only weapon we have. Those people who assert we are out simply to make trouble for trouble's sake arc people who have no interest whatever in the Labour movement, who do not in tho least realise the principles which the movement is striving for, and to whom the working man is anathema. We recognise there are defects m our system. We also recognise the power and necessity of efficiency and thrift, to which you refer. And we do not deny there have been faults on our side. On the contrary, we admit there have been. But will the capitalist admit there have been faults on his? In a world where all history shows that the weak are at the mercy of the strong, should we not, if we threw away what weapons of offence we have, bo once more at the mercy of Capital? Is it not a fact that practically everything Labour lias won has been won by orgaiiisation and hard fighting? We feel that one of the best things that could happen to Labour and to the country, would be a closer union with Capital founded on mutual respect and co-operation, but if the first step to that closer union moans the abandonment w hat may be termed our weapon ot offence then we cannot, dare not, take it, for without this weapon wo are at once brought faco to face with the question— Can we trust the employer for our advancement, our protection, and our due reward?'—to which question there can only be one answer, and that an emphatic 'No ' " I have tried to deal faithfully with Labour views on this subject as I have found them. Since I hn-vo reported on the one I must necessarily report ' on the other. I regret, however, i n this direction there is little to say. There are plenty of wealthy men in this country who are white to the core, who do not regard thenwealth as something to hoard or only to benefit themselves, and whose highest aspiration it is to use their money for the benefit of others and tho good of the State. I know sorno of these men, and to know them is to rcspect and admire them. But ready as I believe they aro to give, and much as I know they do give, they realise as I think every thoughtful man must realise that mere giving will not relieve them of that responsibility which the ability to give entails; that the act of giving is not at bottom what the country needs or tho Labour movement desires; that a gift may do more harm than good unless the motive which impels the gift is able to make its influence felt; and that until a truer, deeper and more widespread perception of citizenship and responsibility dawns on the people the high purpose they desire to serve can never be gained. But when I have said that I have said practically all there is of a satisfactory nature to say. For thougli I have not yet had the opportunity or the time to ascertain the views ot Cap/tal (usim* that term in a general colli ctive sense) on the possibility ot a closer and better underhanding witn Labour to trie same extent as time and opportunity have enabled me to ascertain the viows of Labour, what 1 have done is not encouraging. I have it is true, come across many a large business and been on many a station where work is carried on in harmony arising from mutual respect; where the welfare cTt both employer and employed is a matter winch is sincerely considered by both. But, speak ing broadly, I y have not yet found that capital is prepared to admit there have been faults on its side or that it is prepared to interest itself in promoting a better understanding and relationship with labour. Where on ttie sido of labour ! have found a frank, open willingness, to express opinion and discuss a problem which altects practically everybody, on tho side of capital this expression and discuss.on has been mare often than not conspicuous by its absence. Capital, indeed, seems to me to bo very much in tho position of a man who knows that sooner or later ho will have to face a certain issue, the successful solution of which absolutely depends on tho co-operation of one who he knows regards him with distrust, and for whom lie has no very friendly feelings. For these reasons ho decides to do nothing, partly because to do anything renders lum liable not only to a rebuff, but to the assumption that an advance on his sido is attributable to fear, and also because ho hopes that by doing nothing, tho mistakes his opponent is prone to make may influence public opinion so much in his favour that co operation between them may be postponed for a very long time. * It is a thousand pities. The strong and straightforward .course in any dispute is surely, first, to purge oneself 'of selfishness or personal aggrandisement, and then to approach one's opponent in the sincere dcsiro to about a better Tuidorstandiiiar. I honestly believe—indeed, it is indisputable—there is no valid rea.-on to-day why— if both sides really desired it, which tiiey surely must do in their inmost hearts, for each is dependent on the other—the relations between labour and capital, or employer and employed, should not be immensely improved, not only to the great advantage of each, but to the inestimable advantago of the whole country. But the first steps to this better relationship are— recognition (not on one sido alono, but on both sides) that nvstakes have boon made in tho past: that selfishness in the long run docs not pay: and that just as the welfare of tho individual is dependent on tho welfare of other individuals, so is the welfare of tho community or mv section n c tV community—including labour and dependent on other sections, for. r'?)it at bottom our interests are re:illv identi:-i!. if you kill the one you kill the other also. That this is a matter of education is clear and certain. After all, the root cause

of all trouble is misunderstanding; and misunderstanding alono. The one outstanding point I want to make, though, hero its tins: If it is a matter of education, do not let us make the fatal mistake of devoting our energies only to (lie poor. It is the rich who want, educating every bit ns much jus the poor; indeed, more so, because relatively wealth brings the greater responsibility, and it is undoubtedly the misuse of wealth which \va.s originally, and probably still is, tho main cause of protest and trouble.