THE COMMON ROUND

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18444, 4 January 1922, Page 2

THE COMMON ROUND

By Watf'aree. 1922 will be a year of opportunity, someone has said. I don’t, remember who it was. It may have been Mr Hughes—not William Morris, the Australian variety, who has, for a man that likes the limelight, been unusually quiet of late, but Charles Evans, tho American—or it may have been Mr Lloyd George. It may have been Dr Thacker or Mr Michael Collins. It doesn’t realjy matter who said it. Anyone might have said it. After all, the statement is not the expression of any great, original thought. It is a mere commonplace. The year will be one of opportunity just to the extent to which the world takes occasion by the hand. Every year is tho year of opportunity—this one on which we have entered not specially more so than any other. Except perhaps in the case of Ireland. Ireland always provides tho exception. It should have been Mr Michael Collins, even if it was not, who made the trite observation about the year fading a year of opportunity. The year should actually witness the inauguration of a new era for Ireland. About the merits of the proposal to establish a meat pool I know nothing. I am not ashamed of my ignorance on the subject. With a professional journalist it would be different. Politicians and producers may spend weeks in hatching a scheme to improve the marketing of meat, and when it is sketched in bare outline for public information the professional journalist is expected to pronounce a judgment on it in half an hour. If he cannot do so, he is no journalist. Anyone hanging _ precariously, as I am, to the outer fringe of journalism, has no reason to be ashamed_ of knowing nothing, or less than nothing, about tne pool scheme, when, as I have observed, men who are supposed to be conversant with all the intricacies of tho meat business say they are nqt sufficiently familiar with the details of the proposal to express any opinion concerning it. There are two things which strike me in connection with the pool. One is that if the proposal is carried into effect it means tho, creation or the perpetuation of a great public department. This at a time when Mr Massey is speaking—with some emphasis on the “speaking”—about down expenditure. You can take it from me that there are officials in the public service who are keenly interested in tho pool proposal. ; The process by which a public department expands is quite simple. The Government decides that there must be a Controller, say, of Moat Supplies. The official who is appointed must bo provided with a suite of rooms. The suite _of rooms must be appropriately and expensively furnished. Moreover, they rriust be occupied. The head official provides himself with a clerk, a typiste, and a messenger. That is how the thing begins. It grows under competitive conditions. Tho competition is a departmental, competition. The head of one department feels that it is due to its importance that it should bo as strongly staffed as another department. If not at once, it must attain to a staff not inferior to that of tho department lost created be-, fore it.' It is due also to. the head’s own ambition that his department khall grow. Moreover, the question of his salary Weighs with him. Because the bigger that department becomes the higher is his salary': likely to be. The dislike of Government officials for a policy of retrenchment is nob aned, therefore, to the subordinates, whose positions may be trie less secure. I r The other idea which is suggested by the proposal to form a meat pool relates to tho word “pom” itself. Why a “pool”? What is a! “pool”? As I understand it, tho proposal id, roughly, that 1 the meat producers shall put their, meat for export into a common stock and that- the proceeds from the sale shall bo distributed among them in proportion to the amount of their contributions to it. It is, therefore, a proposal for co-operation in the disposal of produce and for distribution p’to rata of the profits, whatever they may be. In its Original Sense, a pool is something to which all the participants in a game may-contri-bute but of which only one fortunate player is tho ultimate possessor. The use of the word in tho sense in which it is employed in such expressions as “wheat pool” and “meat pool” must have; originated in America. Perhaps there is some connection between the two uses of the word.* In each case, it suggests a gamble. Although 1 am told that in England, despite all tho allegedly levelling tendencies of the war, the same respect is yielded to rank and wealth as of yore, there is no country where I have observed so much profound deference to titles as in Canada. Yet Canada is tho one ultra-democratic dominion which has solemnly, by parliamentary resolution, expressed its opposition to tho Creation of titles. The party which lias now come into power in that country prominently associated itself with that opposition. The new Government itself, however, contains at least one possessor of a title, Sir Lomor Gouin. Clean-shaven as I remember him, swarthy of complexion and stout of frame. Sir Lomor Gouin is an impressive figure in tho public life of East Canada. It was less than eighteen months ago that he resigned the Premiership of Quebec in order to assume, the editorship of La Presse, one of the French daily papers in tho city of Quebec. He had been a dominating . factor in provincial politics for several years, and ho relinquished them in tho belief _ that his influence might be more successfully exerted as a journalist than as a politician. Apparently, however, he has lapsed back not only into politics but also into office,, with the difference that, instead of being the Minister of a province, he is now a Minister of the dominion. Democracy is said to love a lord. It all depends upon tho way the lord recognises his obligations. Rank imposes obligations tho neglixst of which imperils it. A popular novelist has put this view in the mouth of one of his • aristocratic characters:— What I oan’t get people to see is that we’re hanging on by our eyelids to such position os . we’ve got. ,A hundred years ago we were a class apart and above criticism. Our present accursed democracy was unborn. But, when once that came into ’existence, we could only keep ourselves from proscription by saying very loudly that we were'still a cl a® aoart and were setting a standard. Democracy’s too lazy and snob-ridden to bo very exacting, but it’s had its eye on us. The aristocracy of Great Britain stood the test of the war excellently. Recognising their obligations, young men of title, young men expectant of title, 1 and young men whose names are to be found in the pages of Debrett, flocked to the colours immediately the call came and unquestioningly laid down their lives in thousands. But the almost open purchase of titles at Home and the facility with which mere wealth, sans dignity and sans the old sense of public obligation, has obtained honour has left a bad taste in tho mouth of the democracy. After all, it is easy to perceive the reason of the opposition that is expressed to the bestowal of titles. As things are, titles are conferred upon men of position and influence whore they are not conferred upon men whoso _ recommendation to them consists in their wealth, possibly acquired by profiteering, and their ability and readiness (for a consideration) to subscribe lavishly to party funds. Tho bestowal of titles tends, therefore, to accentuate class distinctions. On this account, probably, it tends to aggravate class antagonisms. What seems to be needed is some form of Royal honour which con servo the purpose of embracing all classes. It may have been hoped that the establishment of the Order of the British ,Empire would have fulfilled this object. Any such hope has, however, been disappointed. _ There _ has been no greater abuse in the distributions of honours than has occurred in, the bestowal of this Qrder. ’ In Great Britain tho unworthy have had this honour showered upon them to the exclusion of the worthy. In New Zealand, ns is perfectly well known, tho same thing lias happened. Those who made tho greatest sacrifices in tho four grim years, and more, of tho war were ignored, while the 0.8. E. has been conferred upon peoplewomen os well as men—who not only made no sacrifices but actually profited through the conflict.