The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1926.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3765, 11 May 1926, Page 51

The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1926.) THE WEEK.

“Nunqnntn aliud neierw. allud eaplentia dtiM.* —JUVEXAI"Good nature and good sense must ever join.”* Pol'S.

During the past week in the Homeland — the most fateful, as the

The Shadow ol Revolution.

Prime Minister has reminded us, since the days of the Stuart Kings, the

centre of conflict has shifted moal markedly. The point at issue is no longer confined to the dispute between coal owners and miners; it has now developed into a struggle for domination between the powers of the Government and the full strength of trades unionism. As to which party is directly responsible for this dangerous development there is a conflict of evidence, the outstanding feature being that matters apparently are drifting rapidly into a situation little short revolution. The immediate retort to the declaration on the part of the trades unionists of a general strike was a message from the King declaring a state of emergency. In the debate which followed the presentation of. the Royal message Mr Baldwin pictured the situation when be said that although the Labour leaders had not realised it, when they decided upon a general strike it was the closest to civil war that England had been for centuries. He added : “Wages are not imperilled, but freedom and the constitution are. Everything we have worked for for two yearn has been dashed to pieces, but that does not remove our faith and our courage. We shall r<3gather the pieces and start again.” In the House of Lords the Earl of Oxford and Asquith spoke with equal frankness when he declared that the general strike was a blow at the very vitals of the country. “It was a sinister and lamentable fact,” he continued, “that at the time They were propagating the doctrine of disarmament they should have at home one of the cruellest and most indiscriminating of . 11 forms of warfare, affecting the innocent mass of the people.” He gave it as his opinion that no Government could refrain from taking up the challenge, and further that the Government would have unanimous support in its effort to assert the country's paramount interest above all classes.” That veteran parliamentarian, Mr T. P. O'Connor, undoubtedly voiced the general sentiment when he asked how it could be an advantage to anybody to continue the struggle, at the same time declaring that the country would hold the man who defeated the last attempts to prevent a disastrous war heavily, if not criminally, responsible. The concluding words of his speech sounded a very timely note: “Is there a question of dignity? Good God, what’s any man’s dignity compared with this great disaster!” Thef greatness of the disaster may be measured from the fact that as the days go by the prosnect of a settlement seems further off than ever, and both sides are preparing for a bitter fight.

There is a d Two Honest Men!

deep significance in the fact that Britain has drifted perilously near to civil war despite the incessant and

untiring efforts of two honest men who have striven with all their might to keep the peace, tyr Baldwin has stated on several occasions that one of his chief qualifications for the responsible position he occupies is the fact tliat he is an honest man ; and a weekly newspaper recently published a character sketch neaded "Honest Jim Thomas.” The 'old adage declares that honesty is the best policy, but in the negotiations between Mr Baldwin and Mr Thomas the policy does not seem to have worked, since they each give a different account of the influences at work which culminated abruptly in the breaking off of the negotiations. So soon as a general strike was declared Mr Baldwin broadcasted to the nation the message: ‘‘Keep steady and remember that peace on earth comes to

men of goodwill’; to which the Labour organ, the Daily Herald, at once retorted in a.*i editorial which directly impugned Mr Baldwin’s honesty of purpose. “Mr Baldwin appeals for goodwill,” said the Herald. "Let him set the example and cease to be the tool of big business in an attempt to lower the standard of the life of the masses.” The writer of the article referred to somewhat sarcastically says: "Good old Jim Thomas! If only all the Labour leaders were like him there would never be any strikes, and the wheels of industry would run as smoothly as if they had been greased.” The article goes on to say that Mr Thomas has his detractors, “but almost alone among mere vulgar working men. Among the middle and upper classes all but all men speak well of him.” The article concludes with an expression of opinion which, reading between the lines, goes far to explain why the negotiations for peace carried on between “two honest men” have so utterly failed: He was born with an olive branch in his mouth, and he wears it now in his buttonhole. He will never stand on the barricades, but he might sit on the fence—giving kindly greetings on either side of it, and accepting moral support from each. If he does ever sit on the fence, we shall prefer to call it “riding the rail.” And he will not sit so long there that, in Tim Healey’s classic phrase, “the iron will have entered his soul.” He will climb down (or up) on one side or the other. While there he will be regarded as a liaison officer between Capital and Labour. "Liaison” may have sometimes an unpleasant meaning, but not here. He will tell the worker the good there is in Capitalists, and the capitalist the good (sometimes so woefully misdirected) there is m workmen, and he will try to make both ends meet. But eventually he will feel that the straddle has become too onerous, he will judge his work as liaison officer concluded, and he will climb down (or up) on the side where he will decide his true future sphere as the servant of the public is to be found.”

The issue of the struggle now impending \ has apparently passed out f “Winny” of the control of the two and ••Jix.” honest men, Mr Baldwin | and Mr Thomas, and now \ rests largely with other two men popu- ! larly known as “Winny” and "Jix,” pet names i'or Mr Winston Churchill. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Homo Secretary. Sir W. Joynson Hicks, fighting men both. Much depends upon the manner and spirit in which the struggle is continued by these two Cabinet Ministers. At the outset Mr Churchill was exceedingly frank. He said that no parliament worthy of the name could abdicate to the dictation of the trade unions, and moreover that “if the Government were overthrown some other force would arise and carry on the nation’s struggles unflinchingly and resolutely to the end.” With these words in full view the faefi must be taken into account that “Winny” is a gentleman adventurer who dearly loves a fight. A glance at his career re- f calls South Africa, Sidney Street, the mobilisation of the Fleet before war was declared, Antwerp, and Gallipoli. It re- i mains to be seen whether these experiences qualify him for taking an active part in the crisis which confronts the British Empire. "Better Winny than Jix,” says one of Mr Churchill's admirers, and adds: “Among the shifting, shifty figures of politics our eyes come to rest with satisfaction on the face and form of our Peter Pan Napoleon. You may see him marching along Whitehall, the bent back burdened with the weight of Government, the ever boyish face set in pretentious gloom. Laugh at him if you • will (the laughable parts are obvious), bwfc remember that here is a politician who loves his country.”

It is scarcely The Englishman " and His Newspaper.

too much to aver that bntJ for the stoppage of the Daily Mail there would have been no Uovernme-nfc ultimatum and no general

strike; nay, more, that the trades union leaders made a great strategic blunder when they deprived the Englishman of his newspaper. To challenge the right of the editor of so powerful an organ as the Daily Mail to express his opinion on the strike situation was almost as serious an offence as to challenge the British Constitution itself. And to follow up this first mistake by an attack > upon the entire newspaper world, ex- j elusive, of course, of the Labour organs, savoured too much of Bolshevik methods to be palatable to the people. The average man is inclined to treat it as a joke when deprived of his usual means of transport to and from his work; but to rob him of his daily paper is worse than stealing his breakfast. Save for some emergency editions which can only reach the favoured few, London, during last week, has been largely without news, ami this at an extraordinary crisis in the nation’s history. It is probable that the dweller in the backblocks of Otago today has a better general idea of the strike situation in the Homeland than has the average man who lives in London. The absence of the cry of the news- / oov adds, declares a cable message, to the deathly silence in which London is wrapped by nightfall, and this is not the worst feature. “The public,” continues the message, “feels helpless in the grip of tile amazing silence. Reckless rumours of riots and shootings and movements of troops have spread alarmingly. The (Government newspaper and also the (Government broadcast issue gives frequent denials, but the nervousness is not always allayed.”

Farmers in The Wheat Preblem.

general and wheat-growers iff particular will do well to give heed to the advice ten* dered by Professor Condliffo

last week. The situation as disclosed in that address is that with an increased demand for wheat from an evergrowing population, the supply is as

steadily decreasing, and this in face of the fact that the soil of the Dominion is able to produce all the grain required for the nte's needs. The deficit has to be ) up by importations from Australia, and in case of a drought season in the Commonwealth from as far away as California and Canada. Not only so, but the importations would largely betake of flour rather than bread, in which case there would be a shortage of essential byproducts as well as slackness in the New Zealand flour milling industry. Professor Condliffe is not enamoured of price fixiug by the Government, or indeed with any interference with the laws of supply and demand. His appeal is for the farmers themselves to solve the wheat problem by the application of scientific methods. He insists that it is unscientific to calculate the cost of wheat-growing as a separate product; rather it should be regarded as one of a series of crops in rotation, each one of which is needed to keep the ground in good heart, thus ensuring a remunerative return. This, he avers, ought to provide sufficient economic stimulus for the growing of an ample supply of wheat for home requirements. Farmers should ponder these remarks and act accordingly.