The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1928.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3882, 7 August 1928, Page 47

The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1928.) THE WEEK.

“Nunquatn allud natura, allud Eapientia dixit.” —Juvenal. “Good nature and good sense must ever join.”— Pope. The annual meeting of the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Thrift, held last week, was made and Opportunity, the occasion on the part of the retiring president and president-elect-to offer some remarks on the subject of industry, thrift, and opportunity. • The moral which the speakers strove to inculcate was that, given the necessary industry and thrift, New Zealand offered exceptional opportunities to the man or woman with ambition to get on in the world. Mr James Taylor, however, was at pains to point out that an essential to this desirable progress was co-operation in industry between employer and employee. A notable factor, eminently favourable to such co-operation in the Dominion, was alluded to by Mr Taylor, viz., that the bulk of the business concerns are owned or at least controlled by men who themselves are workmen, and whose incomes and standards- of living differ -but slightly from those of the men they employ. The fact that the worker of to-day so often develops into the socalled capitalist of to-morrow should serve to allay any antagonism still existent between the two classes, an antagonism which happily, however, shows distinct signs of sensible diminution. If, instead of preaching a doctrine of revolutionary Socialism, the leaders of the Labour Party would devote their energies to pointing out the opportunities which the Dominion offers for the workers to become masters, not by any false systems of expropriation, but by dint of the practice of the old-fashioned virtues of industry and thrift, virtues which, according to the figures quoted by Mr Rosevear, are still alive in our midst, a step forward would be taken in the much needed movement towards cooperation in industry.

Political Portents.

The Leader of the Opposition apparently

knows what he is talking about when he recently affirmed that the real

fight at the forthcoming general election would be between the Reform Party and the Labour Party. He supported this assertion by analysis of the division lists of some previous years, which go to show that upon all crucial questions the Liberals and Nationalists voted with the Government, declining to go into the lobby with the Labour Party. Which naturally leads Mr Holland to conclude that the United Party will follow similar tactics. Such a conclusion somewhat takes the bite out of the attacks upon the Government made by Mr Veitch, assuming that gentleman to possess potentialities as the coming Leader of the United Party. It is an awkward circumstance for Mr Veitch that he is on the horns of a dilemma. Should he have the good fortune to sit in the new Parliament and to lead the United Party he will be faced by two alternatives, either equally disconcerting— the one to vote with the Reform Party, with whom he disagrees, the other to ally himself with the Labour Party, which he detests. Thus the actual effect of Mr Veitch’s criticism is to help Mr Holland, without in the slightest aiding his own cause. Which brings into relief the truth of the statement that the real issue before the electors is Socialism and anti-Socialism, and that Mr Veitch, with the United Party, is simply a red herring drawn across the track.

Religion and the State.

The defeat in the House of Representa-

tives of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill will not excite much in

the way of genuine regrets. Truth to tell, the agitation on its behalf has been of a half-hearted description, and this largely because in order to secure unanimity on the subject among the Churches, the so-called religious exercises provided for in the Bill had been whittled down to the irreducible minimum. The outstanding objection to the State taking any part in the teaching of religion in a Dominion where every church is on a basis of abso-

lute equality is that there is so little agreement among the denominations as to what shall be taught and how, and by whom the teaching shall be imparted. Even in the present instance the Bill was strongly opposed by the dignitaries of that powerful body the Roman Catholics. And while it may be regretted on purely literary grounds that an accepted classic like the English Bible should be excluded from the school curriculum, the Churches have only themselves to blame. There never was a greater divergence of opinion concerning the interpretation of the Bible than at the present time, and for the State to intervene upon so recondite a subject would be most unseemly. . There is at once conjured up the possibility of a general election,. fought upon the question whether the Scriptural manual for use in the schools should be compiled upon a Modernist or a Fundamentalist plan, an issue calculated to arouse a bitterness before which the Prayer Book revision controversy in the Homeland would pale. The only safe course is to stick strictly to the secular system of education so far as the Dominion is concerned.

Compulsory Mill tary Training.

It is significant that the Bill sponsored

by Mr J. A. Lee provid11- ing for the abolition of , the present system of com-

pulsory military training received only the support of the Labour members in Paliament, and the ensuing discussion failed to evoke anything fresh in the way of argument. Mr Lee claimed for his side of the case that a growth of public opinion was discernible in favour of the repeal of the existing law. Except, however, that publicity has been given to certain cases of conscientious objectors, there does not appear to be much evidence to support Mr Lee’s contention. A. time may come—which all will hail with gladness—when war wil] be no more, and when international disputes will be settled in a more rational fashion, but pending the coming of that millennium some system of defence is the duty of any nation. This entails a degree of military training either of a voluntary or a compulsorv nature. And experience goes to show that of the two systems compulsion is the fairest and the best.

Cables and Wireless.

The statement presented to Parliament

last week by the Prime Minister containing a summary of the report of

the Imperial 'Wireless and Cables Conference opens up a number of very important questions, which call for the most careful consideration. The facts of the case are not in dispute, but the policy best to be pursued affords matter for debate. Although the beam wireless system is yet at the -beginnings of its possible developments, it is already a formidable competitor of the cable, and if left to follow a strictly commercial course wireless must eventually eliminate. the entire system of cable communication. From the Imperial point of view, cable communication possesses a secrecy and an accuracy denied to the wireless system in its present stage, and it is therefore deemed desirable to preserve the cable system from extinction. This it is proposed to do by bringing both the cable and the British wireless under the control of a Communications Company. The formation of so powerful a trust is open to many objections, even when hedged, about by the safeguards ~ proposed in the conference report. It is a subject upon which the fullest information is desirable before a final decision is come to; indeed, this is a case when it is important that haste should be made slowly.

Cabinet Responsibility.

Attention has been markedly drawn to

the diversity of the views expressed by members of the British Cabinet on

the safeguarding of industries, and Mr Baldwin has been pointedly asked which view represents, the policy of the Government. Consequently Mr Baldwin has deemed,it wise to remind his colleagues in the Cabinet of the doctrine of collective responsibility. The matter has a local interest, since on several occasions recently Ministers have been prone to take a different view from that voiced by Mr Coates. The principle that on all policy measures the Cabinet has only one voice was written into the British Constitution 150 years since, Sir Robert Walpole being the foremost mover in the new order of things. Prior to this, Cabinet members were not necessarily of one party, but gradually the composite Cabinet gave place to the purely party Cabinet. There was a time also when the Sovereign was a member of the Cabinet, and attended its meetings, and the change wae effected because George I was unable tc speak the English tongue. Even in the party Cabinet Ministers for a while claimed the right of an individual opinion on departmental matters until Sir Robert Walpole brought matters to a head by sununarily dismissing the Ministers who opposed his Excise Bill. Since when the doettine of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet is tacitly accepted by all holders of ministerial office.