The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1921.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3489, 25 January 1921, Page 39

The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1921.) THE WEEK.

—JUT°NiI, m * llU<J natura ‘ alllld *apienti» dlxK.* Po'pß°° d Datur ® »f»4 good spnse madt atti jot*.*—.

Mr John Storey, Premier of New South I Wales, may reasonably be congratulated upon the* successful stand he has made against Hie attempt of the State Executive of the Australian Labour Party to exert its authority over the Government. About a week ago Mr Storey was called upon to respond to a peremptory summons to attend, with members of the parliamentary Labour Party, a conference which amounted to a Star Chamber inquisition, summoned for the purpose of his trial and possible conviction. He was told, in effect, that he and his party in Parliament were held jointly responsible for what were asserted to be grievances, an I they were charged with neglect or disregard of certain instructions delivered to him and the State Parliamentary Party. He had omitted, among other things, to appoint certain members of the Australian, Labour Party to the Legislative Council, he had failed to abolish “scab labour bureaus” on the water-front; and, worst of all, in view of his intention of leaving for London on a financial mission he had had the temerity to secure a prorogation, of Parliament for six months. Obviously the issue was whether the Government or the executive of the Australian Labour Party was political master in the State. The members of Mr Storey’s following in Parliament would appear to have quite grasped the significance of the situation. They have stood loyally by their leader, have unanimously decided to support his attitude, and have requested the executive of the Labour Partv to withdraw its demands. Mr Storey should now be able to go ahead confidently with hia plans. Although there were grave misgivings when he and his inexperienced Ministry assumed office, Mr Storey and his Cabinet have managed distinctly well sa far, and have shown a desire to deal fairly with the electors as a whole. Mr Storey has even incurred criticism in regard to the friends he has been said to be “cultivating.” His critics in the militant wing of the executive of the A.L.P. objected to his being entertained at a farewell dinner by the Legislative Council. They' said that as a true democrat he should not attend lunches given by the Million-! Club. They were horrified that his Ministry should have recommended a certain' person for knighthood. It is not a very happy family in which such symptoms occur, and it was a sort of climax when, as the Sydney Sun observes, “the hidden hand stret-ched out and caught representative government by the scruff of the neck.” The methods of the Australian Labour Party should not increase its prestige m the eyes of the country. The honours are with Mr Storey so far, and should remain with him. For this circumstance all selfrespseting democrats should be thankful.

Labour in Politics.

The millers of Kansas are not at the | moment inclined to jollity. They have taken a certain aourse of business action, because of depressed trade, with the result that they find themselves arraigned before the Industrial Court to answer charges that they are curtailing the I production of flour to affect prices. The Court, has adopted a procedure which has created much interest an'd considerable opposition. It has been in operation for several months and one critic contends that the result of the millers’ case “must either justify the existence of the court or condemn it to oblivion.” The Court aims both at adjusting wages and working conditions and at controlling prices. Radical. Labour, which in the LTnited States means extreme Labour, was vehemently opposed to the Court. It fought the re-election of the Governor of Kansas, who was tka

author of the Act, and “painted him as an enemy of Labour and a hireling of Capital.’’ The Governor was re-elected and “not a single man who voted against the Industrial Court law was returned to the Legislature.” The first efforts of the court were concerned with purely labour questions. It was born amid opposition and denounced as a new weapon of Capitalism against Labour. In the miners troubles its operation entailed new and vehement objection, not only from the miners but from all organised labour. Experience has, however, worn down some of the rougher edges of criticism, and large numbers of workers now believe the Court is an infinitely better instrument than the strike for securing the adjustment of grievances. The Governor was re-elected because thousands of unionists voted for him as a friend and not an enemy of the workers. It is on record that the Industrial Court decided a case in favour of the miners in forty-eight hours which walking delegates and paid agitators had been trying for years to remedy. So far the history of the Industrial Court of Kansas has not been unlike that of wage-regulating tribunals in some other countries, but the millers’ case breaks new ground in an important field.

A New Departure.

“The first case of the kind which has been tried in the whole world,’’ said Judge Higgins speaking on the Kansas millers’ case. When the Industrial Court appeared to be designed solely to dictate to Labour, however justly, says one critic, Labour naturally opposed it. “If it proves able,” says the same writer, ‘’to dictate to producers or to capital in such a way as to make essential commodities more easily available to labour or to consumers in any class, much of the original opposition to it will be eliminated.” Clearly the court is attempting a huge task. It is one thing to award wages and working conditions in a certain industry if it is carried on, but it is quite another thing to say that that industry must be carried on at all cost. It is suggested that under the Kansas law a miller must keep on milling whether he is making a profit or not. ‘ When courts, an arm of the Government,' says one American newspaper, “assume control over wages and profits and power to say when factories shall run and when men shall work, we have achieved the substance of Socialism. That is the last thing the advocates of the Industrial Court intended.” The defendant millers admit having curtailed their output and one or two have suspended operations for the present. But such a step is sound business, they assert, for the reason that a lack of orders must mean reduced production. It is pointed out that Canadian flour can be landed cheaper in Kansas than it can be produced in that State. Consequently the price, of flour has decreased, though it is alleged that the millers’ cost of production has increased. What then is the Kansas miller to do? Must .he Sleep his mill grinding flour when there is no sale for that flour? Must he keep on running his mill at a financial loss, and, if so, who will pay his wages bill when he reaches the end of his credit balance? Can he regain his freedom of judgment in this matter of business enterprise only by entering the State penitentiary, for only there would he appear to be safe from the pains and penalties of the Industrial Court? Little wonder that at present the modern miller of Kansas is not a perfect prototype of the ancient jolly miller who lived by himself. Perhaps, however, Kansas and its millers will know more about its Industrial Court when its decisions have run the gauntlet of the higher courts.

A New Socialism.