The Daily News. THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1926. UNIONISM V. COMMUNITY.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 May 1926, Page 8

The Daily News. THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1926. UNIONISM V. COMMUNITY.

There is one special phase of the British general strike that is bound to attract attention. It presents the spectacle of four million trade unionists arrayed against more than millions of the general community! Well may the London Times exclaim:—

“Unless counsels of reason prevail, the country is faced with the gravest domestic menace since the fall of the Stuarts. It is incredible that the men’s leaders have really considered the nature and consequences of a general strike, otherwise they would not support so manifestly disastrous a step. They claim to speak on behalf of three and a half million people,” but admittedly only a fraction have been consulted on the issue. The leaders arrogate to themselves the right to inflict incalculable injury upon the entire nation and Empire.”

The position in relation to the ultimatum delivered by the British Trades Union leaders in connection with the coalminers’ strike could not be more aptly described. A very significant indication of the arrogant and unscrupulous methods of the unionists is evidenced by their gross interference with the freedom of the Press—an action that is rightly ■ described as involving a challenge to the constitutional rights and freedom of the nation. When it comes to printers on the staff of a newspaper refusing to permit the publication of a leading article calling on all lawabiding citizens to hold themselves at the service of King and country, then some idea can be gained of what Bolshevism meant to Russia. It is quite conceivable that the General Council of the Trades Union Congress should disclaim “knowledge of overt acts,” including interference with the liberty of the Press, but the Labour Organ (the Daily Herald) proclaims that “in all newspaper offices the printers are watching closely what is being said about the crisis.” There is no difficulty in arriving at a reasonable conclusion as to what those words are intended to convey, especially as that watching has let to almost a complete hold-up of the Press. It is a deliberate attempt to block all views from being published except those voiced by Labour, and is quite consonant with previous illustrations of trades union ideas of a fair and square

deal in a struggle whereby less than four million attempt to dominate more than forty million of the community. Under these circumstances it is most gratifying to find the New York Times asserting that: —

“No Government can surrender and preserve not merely its self-respect, but its life. Mr. Baldwin (British Premier) may be counted upon, if insane counsels prevail among the labour unions, to stand firm for the right of the majority to rule, and to demonstrate again the ability of the English people to work out their own salvation in a time of stress and trouble,”

The British Government took that firm stand, and insisted on the countermanding of the general strike. The closer the contentions put forward by official trades unionists are studied, the more convincing is the outstanding fact that the present struggle for dominance on their part is but another trial of strength, hence the intervention of the general body of unionists as represented by the Council of the Trades Union Congress, and the resultant declaration of a general strike on the part of all unions. The idea underlying this move may be to effect a world-wide upheaval. In this connection it is worth noting the remarks of the Chicago Tribune: “Moscow'may think the trend is toward Red Communism, and Mussolini will think it is towards Italian Syndicalism with a dictatorship. British Labour is infected with the idea that cutting down production is the proper policy to pursue against capital.” In view of the action of the trades unions it can justly be claimed that they are seizing the opportunity to war against the community rather than to arrive at a settlement by constitutional means. The British Premier has endeavoured, by the exercise of exemplary patience ond the use of every resource at his command, to arrive at an amicable adjustment whereby a stoppage of the coal industry could be averted, only to find arrayed against him the combined forces of trades unionism. These are bent on enforcing their demands on the line of action well known to footpads. The bone of contention happens to be the Motherland’s key industry, and is therefore of most vital importance; so is the principle involved, namely, whether the affairs of the country are to be governed by its representatives or by a Trades Union committee. As a matter of course, everyone will lose, while Germany is eager to capture the coal trade, or at least to regain her share of it. The marvel is that, knowing full well the urgent nature of the need for increased industrial activity in Britain, the trade unionists should, for the mere sake of dominance, prefer to paralyse industry rather than be parties to a temporary compromise that would have led to a settlement of the coal dispute. Action like that is almost incomprehensible.