THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1935. ALBERTA HAS A PLAN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22659, 26 August 1935, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1935. ALBERTA HAS A PLAN

Probably the most worried man to-day in the Province of Alberta, Canada, is Major C. ' H. Douglas, originator of Douglas Social Credit. Cable news from Calgary indicates that Alberta is definitely committed to a Social Credit Government. That would seem to be the least likely cause for worry on the part of Major Douglas, who has long sought for an opportunity of putting his theories to the test of performance. But behind tire acceptance by Alberta of Social Credit as the unfailing economic nostrum there is one of the most amusing political comedies of these harassing times. A couple of years ago Alberta discovered its Father Coughlin. William Aherhart, for a quarter of a century principal of one of the largest high schools in Calgary, became in quick succession leader of the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute and revolutionary politicoeconomic theorist. He began the second and more public phase of his career as a sort of modern Minor Prophet, castigating a sinful generation for its errors of commission and omission. The radio and a seductive tongue gave him an audience, and, when the seemingly inevitable short step from social reformer to active politician had been taken, his native wit apparently gave him a policy. He emerged as an ardent propagandist for Social Credit and founded a Social Credit League which skilfully merged the substance of Major Douglas’s theories (if there is any substance to them) with the shadow of Mr Aberhart’s. Briefly, he guaranteed under his “ plan ” a minimum income of 25 dollars a week to every adult inhabitant of Alberta. It has to be remembered that he was addressing, in the main, a fanning community which had been very hard hit by the slump, afflicted in successive years by grasshoppers, droughts and kindred visitations, and burdened with a weight of public and private debts which it could see no chance, of liquidating at existing price levels. So Mr Aberhart’s promise of a “just price” for the farmer’s products, to be balanced by the issue of “social credit certificates ” on the basis of 25 dollars a month to every citizen—won its converts by the thousand —so rapidly, indeed, that the United Farmers of Alberta Government, in power for the past 14 yeai’s, became genuinely alarmed at the prospect of loss of prestige. And this was the stage when Major Douglas himself entered the scene. Sensing . disaster if counter-measures were not taken, the Farmers Government, led by Mr R. G. Reid, made to Major Douglas the offer of an appointment, which was accepted, as its economic and financial adviser for two years, at a cost of £2600. The first official duty of Major Douglas, it appears, was to declare Mr Aberbart’s “ plan ” impracticable, He did so, but gravely disappointed the Government by qualifying his condemnation to the extent of commending the plan as being on the right lines, although it ignored some of the basic principles of the Douglas theory. Major Douglas, in fact, seemed to have considerable doubt about who was to find the money for the payment of the “just price,” Mr Aberhart being as vague on this point as the sponsors of guaranteed prices are in New Zealand. Mr Aberhart’s movement received stimulus, however, instead of cheek, and now, with the electors’ approval, he is to- introduce Alberta to Utopia. Major Douglas, despite his doubts, seems to have given his blessing to the enterprise. But, as an observer on the spot, he will doubtless be able to explain later, to the fanners of Alberta and elsewhere, just where Mr Aberhart went wrong. | For it is a safe conclusion that the | “ just price ” and the minimum income of 25 dollars per adult head will not be forthcoming. A sceptical Federal Government and an equally sceptical Bank of Canada are in the background.

AN ILL-ADVISED STRIKE The Australian shipping strike has come to an end, and the terms of settlement only make it the more apparent that it should never have had a beginning. For nearly three weeks It lasted, involving in the final stages nearly thirty vessels. The trouble had its beginning in the claim, subsequently dismissed by the court, of the members of the crew of the freighter Murada for overtime, and their resort to direct action in refusing to man the vessel. The Seamen’s Union took up their case, and the re-engagement, of these men was made an issue when a crew was being selected for another steamer at Sydney. The militant section of the union engineered the considerable strike developments which followed. The right of the shipping companies to free selection of crews was challenged, and the owners faced a position in which they felt compelled to stand firmly for its vindication. It was clearly shown at meetings of the seamen that a large proportion of members of the union was not at all in favour of a strike. For a time the more vociferous section carried the day, but its grip steadily weakened. A reasonable proposal by the shipowners eventually provided a basis for argument in which common sense, albeit somewhat belatedly, asserted itself. The terms of settlement seem to be precisely those which were offered by the ship-owners some days ago, namely, that their right of free selection of crews must be maintained, but that, provided the strikers returned to the ships, there would be no discrimination against members of the Murada’s crew in future calls for seamen. In other words, men capable of service will be selected without reference to any effect of the recent trouble upon their discharges. Thus, the sum and substance of the satisfaction secured by the union is that the difficulty created over the endorsement of seamen’s discharges, which was the alleged ground for striking, no longer exists. But it is a reasonable conclusion that if that had been made the sole issue, without the threat of larger implications, a settlement might have been reached by mutual agreement at a much earlier stage. The ship-owners have maintained their right to free selection of crews. Everything is resumed apparently on a pre-strike basis. But one result that cannot be .wiped out is the loss due to the hold-up of shipping. The owners have suffered, it is estimated, to the extent of some £30,000, and the seamen are the poorer by their large aggregate loss in wages. Other workers have been thrown out of employment, and the indirect loss represented by dislocation of. trade, the hampering of industry, and the inconvenience created for the travelling public will have reached considerable proportions. The seamen were not united, and were obviously ill-advised in allowing themselves to be stampeded into a strike on a relatively minor matter, which, as the sequel has shown, admitted of adjustment by agreement as long as there was no attempt at coercion. Apparently a particularly active minority within the Seamen’s Union was prepared to grasp at the opportunity of making serious mischief, and against the counsels of the moderates was able to sway the earlier meetings. It is to be hoped that one effect of the episode will be that the Seamen’s Union will be more vigilant ip the future in beeping the extremists in their place.