INDUSTRIAL WORLD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17942, 22 May 1920, Page 14

INDUSTRIAL WORLD.

; NEWS AND NOTES, v

By J. T. Paul.

"i A PROFESSOR ON HOUSING. Pirafeasor R. O. Irvine, who oooupiea the Chalir of Eocwandca at Sydney Uxiiverarty, gave cvidenoe before the Federal Baaio wage Commissinn laat month. He s;uU tiuit a cottage of three living rooms, with plenty of verandah accommodation tor sleeping j- out, would solve the local oongeation problem. Such type oould be seen at tnu suujide built of iibro-ceanenfe, answer to a member of the commission, Professor Irvine said Australian people "ivuijo becoming acoiistomod to sleeping out, 11 ud in many suburbs outside the city this inaitett it poesihle to do without an extra roo|n. Present types of dwellings, particularly (lata, added witness, wero very defective internally. In America flats were proyided with wardrobes, linen presses, and plates to store boxes—>all built-in, thus •<liniinishing furniture by about ono-hali. Professor Irvine also said that he hia. ioujid in America that, although labour wns deajror, fivij and six-roomed concrete cottages could bo built for from £350 to £500. There was something radically wrong with our methods of handling these constructions. In answer to a question by the chairman: "Do you tliink it possibio for

individual building undertakings to cope witji tho present shortage?" the Professor said: " No, I suggest co-operative housing, ■which I prefer to municipal. I prefer to Government housing."

INDENTURED LABOUR IN SAMOA

The Cttristohurcn Council of Churches is endeavouring to make up its mind on the question of indentured Labour in Samoa. A little more than a month ago the cuso fori indentured labour was put before the council by Mr L. M. Isitt. M.P., and at thej I-ast meeting Mr E. J. Howard, another Chris tchurch M.P., stated the oase against it.; Mr Howard admitted that, after what theto knew of indentured labour in other islands, tho Labour members of Parliament had" gone to Samoa biased against tlia system—and they had come away more biased than ever. There was no indentured labour in American Samoa, where arif admirable stato of affairs existed in .regard to the natives. New Zealand had "made a mes3" 'of the Cook Islands, which - had been under her charge for 20 years.

; Th 6 administration had not been-good. Tt •was costing now something like £10,500 , pcij annum, and the islands were full of conjplaints as to the administration. Mr Howard said it ha-d been found that 20®of the Chinese had Samoan wives for tha period of thei r stay in the islands. The ■ had found one fine coconut plants/tioti in splendid condition, without coolie labbur to cope with the undergrowth (including the "mile-a-mmuto" weed). Cattle -were grazed in the plantation, and they kept . the ■ undergrowth down. The Saraoans produced 75 per cent, of the copra on the island of Upalu. On Savaii ■ the. figure was 85 per cent. Yet it •waft said that the natives would not work! It was tho 30,000 natives who were keeping!; the beetles down —not the coolies at all.J He believed that Samoa could be made jusiaa profitable and as fine an island as ffonga. "ji it your opinion that this Parliamentary trip was "engineered," so that you could not' get to tho bottom of this indentured labour question?" aaked the Rev. . Dr DSrwin. "Yes," said Mr Howard. "We were not permitted to meet the people unofficially. ; And when we met the chiefs in council we were not permitted to ask questions," THE DEFEAT OF DIRECT ACTION, lie curront number , of the Labour . . Loader has an interesting article on the : special trades union conerress which decided whether direct or political action should (be iised to help forward the movement for tho | nationalisation of the rrjines. Tho majbr portions of tho space is devoted to 1 , thejspeeohea of Mr Frank' Hodges and Mr ../• J. R. Clynes, M.P. The former led the case for direct action and tho latter stood forpolitical action. Summarised, the writer says:— Hodges said one or two weak things.

Who can take seriously, for instance, Jus . suggestion that the present Government , may prolong its life for 16 years without a general election? Such a thing may happen, .true; but the. chances are a hundred to one " that Clynes will prove right when he prophesied that three or four general ' ©lections will take place in that time. Nor did-Hodges's reply to those who say "If a geperal striko at all, let's strike for the revciluiiion,'' appear to me convincing, despite tile delightful phrase in which he put it: "There are soma who, the more remote an object is from realisation, the more ready they are to fight for it." How true! —but the more closely one considers the situation which would bo likely to arise if a general strike took place to secure the public ownership and workers' control of the mines, the more probable the likelihood becomes that it would develop into a struggle for the publio .ownership and workers' control of all industry. It would mean the revolution —or disaster. Hodges was on much stronger ground when ho argued that direct actioA is justifiable at this moment because of tire unrepresentative character of the Government' and . bfca'iiso of its violation of its pledges to tho public. The miners, he declared, have been the victims of a gigantio political fraud in the refusal of tho Government to carry out tho Sankey Report, and _ similarly numbers of pledges to other sections of the public have been broken. Tho heart of Hodges's argument was this: Direct action is generally recognised to l>o justified to secure better conditions, but higher wages have bo-en proved by experience to lead to no improvement because prices mount up moro rapidly than wages. At© tiio workers to accept this situation until nationalisation and workers' control— ■the only means of permanent improvement —are gained by the parliamentary method? If there is to bo no action for nationalisation, declared Mr llodge9, " tho miners will be thrust into tho vortex in which all the other organised workers appear to be swiming—wages, wages, wages." Clynes is ono of the _ best of conference speakers—quiet, reasoning, sensiblo,—and in this speech ho enlivened his argument by one or two rare aphorisms, such as: There are many miners who will travel to London for a cup-tie, but who won't traV&l to a ballot box to vote. And whatever ono thought of the principles from which ho began to argue, one was forccd to admit that ho saw the actual situation accurately. Who can doubt that , ho was right when he said that no one would* welcome a genera] strike more than Mr Lloyd George, and that the Prime Minister would exploit the lesulting unpopularity of organised Labour to secure auotner electoral triumph?. Clynes looked at the issue from a political point of view, but tho immediate situation is as unpromising for a general strike from tho industrial standpoint as from tho political. Look at tho disunity, not only amonj the leaders but anions tho rank and file! The miners are probably more advanced than any other section of tho workers, yet threo out of 'fivo of the miners voted against a strike. As much educational work is necessary on tho industrial sido as on the political. Rather eingerly Clynes put on© point to which I have already referred: if there is to be a general strike why limit its object to mines nationalisation J Why not land rationalisation, too? Why not comfort for the aged and work for the warkless and freedom for Ireland? Rather gingerly, because he, of twurse, employed the argument against a strike, notl in favour of a more revolutionary strike. One' aspect of Hodgee'a speech is worth emphasis, especially beeauso it has been almost entirely neglected by the press. IJo declared against th© habit of the Labour movement to swing to and fro betwoon political and industrial action. Don't let us bo divided in pursuing two policies," he exclaimed. "If direct, aotion is r&jectod, let us abandon it frankly. _If this eongresa' doesn't' want direct action, then I am with tho Labour Party to assist in their educational work. There is no proper education now. Sometimes the .actions of tho people make ono think that wo had better begin with th© children and drop our high fnlutin assertions about working-class intelligence." For tho sal;© of record I give tho vote: Political Action. For: 3,732,000. Against: 1,015,0C0. Direct Action. For: 1.050,000. Against: 3,870,000. A majority of 2,717,000 for political action. But is the Parliamentary Committee serious when it speaks of "intemsivo political propaganda?" Ara the trade union in tg prepared to pay for the propaganda and organisation wnich ar© nooessary if tho general election is to b© won?