TAIERI RIVER TRUST

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18804, 6 March 1923, Page 4

TAIERI RIVER TRUST

The monthly meeting: of'the Taieri River Tru3t ivaa attended by Messrs R. T. Sadd (chairman), Wither Blackie, N. Reid, D. Foid, W. Marshall, D. M'Leod, and 1\ Campbell. Tho Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, notified that full • consideration of the trust's suggestion that section 6S of "The River Boards Act, 1903," bo amended so as to bring the provision into line with section 83 of "The Counties Act, 1920," would be given when the River Boards Act was being dealt with. —Received. In his report (already published), the Engineer asked for instructions regarding tho deepening- of the drains connecting Loch Ascog with the pump.—To be attended to. In connection with flooding in tho Waipori, and the need for warning being given to settlers adjoining the river, Mr Marshall was instructed to interview the Berwick residents regarding telephone arrangements The Engineer handed in a list of bridges and culverts on 18 of the roads in tho River Trust district. He would supplement this with a list of the remaining roads next month.—lt was decided to hand a copy of the list to each commissioner for his information. He cnuk] examino the bridges and culverts, and the matter could bo further considered next month. Accounts totalling £1513 17s 9cT were passed for payment.

THE LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir,—l would like to offer some criticism of the Labour Party’s Conference remits contained in your issue of to-day. In the first place it is very apparent that an attempt will bo made to modify the “Socialisation” objective of the party. Personally, I am of the opinion Hint, apart from the question of whether the Labour Party’s members understand what the objective means, or how it is to bo secured for the workers—■ points on which Communists and Labourites differ very considerably— to alter the objective in the direction of modification would certainly be a backward step. At one time the 1-abour Party’s objective was "Nationalisation.’’ Now it is “Socialisation.” Sonio.may ask what (lie difference is. Nationalisation moans public control under Capitalism, while Socialisation means public control under Socialism—two entirely dilforent things. For example, our New Zealand railways have been Nationalised, not Socialised. Before we can hope to got Socialism the present. Capitalist system must bo done away with. How will the New Zealand Labour Party do this? In Queensland, about, which wo hear so much, tho Labour Government has merely nationalised some of the industries. In New Zealand have we not done so too? In fact, Mr Ceilings, organiser for the Queensland Icabour Party, told us that they could not accomplish everything i r , the interests of their workers, because tho Constitution under which they govern Queensland prevented them. This was equivalent to an admission by Mr Codings that the Queensland Constitution was more powerful than the Queensland I.oboirr Government.

The Dunedin North branch proposes the socialisation of some industries only, iiovv can it, do that? I presume it is confusing ii.-j terms and that it really means "tho nationalisation of all (hose moans of production, distribution, and exchange (hat are in the best interests of tho people.” Tho Hamilton Labour Representation Committee wants the meaning of (ho objective mode clearer, while the Dunedin Operative Bootmakers’ Union wants (ho objective amended (presumably modified) or abolished. Another remit, (his time from the Timaru branch, roads: ‘“The payment of taxation by eo-nperative companies shall be limited to 2s 6d in the £.” If I remember correct ly. W orkers’ Industrial Co-operative Societies do- not pay income tax on proliis made from their members, hut only on profits made from sales to non-members. It appears to mo that, tho remit, if it ever liecanie law. would help, not the workers, but, the large wealthy shareholders ‘connected—almost purely <is investors —with our so-called .farmers’ Co-operative Societies. Such are really not true co-operative association? at all, so why exempt Uieir largo investing shareholders? I am not. of course, referring to working farmer shareholders. In conclusion, permit me to congratulate the Poverty Bay Labour RepresentationCommittee on its remit in favour of May 1 in each year being universally held as Labour Day. Throughout tho world today Socialists hold May Day as a day *o be specially sot aside. Consequently the abolition of the present Labour Day in favour of May Bay as a general holiday would certainly bij a good move in tho interests of the internationalism of the working class.—l am, etc., G. S. Thomson. Opoho, March a.