The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1931. AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18819, 6 March 1931, Page 8

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1931. AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Designated by well-informed I commentators as a measure I for legalising and facilitating I general strikes the Socialist Gov- i ernment’s Trade Disputes Bill i has been withdrawn from the 1 Imperial Parliament, because the 1 Macdonald Administration dare < not invite crushing defeat on one < of its principal pieces of policy. 1 The Socialists had cherished the fond illusion that if they bowed i to the wishes of the Liberals by giving them a desired measure of electoral reform, Mr Lloyd George and his followers would abstain from voting on a Bill that would restore the control of trade union organisation to the Socialists, and place organised Labour at the tender mercies of the advocates of direct action. Tlie revolt of a section of the Liberal Party in the nouse of Commons sealed the fate of a measure that can only be regarded as a menace to the stability of the nation. There is nothing new in the theory of the general strike. It merely seeks to apply to the country at large the methods of the highwayman of old, and the gangster of to-day. It attempts to hold up the community to ransom. It is surprising that organised Labour in this enlightened age should stand behind such barbaric methods. In international affairs, Mr Macdonald and his Socialist colleagues have preached the glories of the doctrine of arbitration, and have expatiated so learnedly and so passionately on the need for international co-operation and a friendlier understanding between the nations of the world. It has been repeatedly urged that the peoples of Europe, at least, have arrived at such a complete understanding that every nation,

without the least risk to its national security, can throw down its arms, scrap its fleet, and rest secure in the goodwill of its neighbours. More than that the very suggestion that the fleets of the world should ever again institute a blockade that would interfere with the people’s good supplies is utterly repugnant to the peace-loving and inter-nationally-minded Socialists now holding the Treasury Benches in the Imperial Parliament. Why then, seek to restore the right to use the barbaric methods of the general strike as a weapon to assist in enforcing Labour’s demands upon an unwilling people. The advocates of the general strike propose if their cause demands it, to cut off the food and necessary supplies of the nation, to deprive it of all means of transport, to shut off its lighting and sanitary services, to reduce its social services to chaos, and so to compel the people and the Government to concede to its demands. It is futile for the defenders of Labour to attempt to repudiate such allegations. FREEDOM OR TYRANNY? Doubtless political memories are proverbially short, but many, even in this country, remember how the end of the war until 1926, the threat of a general strike hung continuously over the political horizon in the Homeland. In these day it may be said that organised Labour still demands the right to strike, a demand which has never been denied the worker, but the holdup of an industry is quite another thing to an organised action to make war on the community. But if memories ■ are short, the nation is not likely to , forget the struggle for ■ supremacy between Parliament and the direct actionists which at various times has played such ' havoc with the interests of the nation. It will be remembered that in 1926,' the threat of a

general strike was translated into action —and it failed. The general strike of that year was broken by the resolute stand of the Conservative Government, with the loyal and courageous backing of the nation. But even in their failure, the leaders of the general strike, some of whom are now to be reckoned among the present Cabinet, inflicted upon the trades union a loss of some live million pounds, upon their members a loss of something like twenty millions in wages, and upon the trade and industry and the community damage from which it has not yet recovered. When that danger had been overcome, the country determined that it should not' be repeated, and the Trades Disputes Act of 1927, was designed primarily to protect the nation against the threat of another general strike. Under the Act, no restraint was imposed upon the legitimate activities of trade unions. Iso strike for purely industrial purposes is affected, no sympathetic strike, even outside an industry, is interfered with so long as its purpose and effect are to bring pressure to bear upon the parties to an industrial dispute, is not to coerce the Government to intervention by the infliction of hardship upon the country. Since the Act was passed, over 900 strikes have taken place, and not one has been interfered with by the 1927 Act. This freedom apparently is not enough for the Socialists, but the 1927 Act prevents the abuse of trade union organisation for revolutionary purposes and by

removing the immunity granted the trade unions and trade union funds in the case of an illegal strike; further the 1927 Act made the ringleaders —and only the ringleaders —in the general strike liable to penalties for their attack in the State. The proposals which the Socialists, who preach peace abroad but wish to prepare for war at home, have failed to force through the Imperial Parliament, would protect agitators in their attack ou the community and offer direct encouragement to extremists to capture the trade union organisations, and to use funds and resources built up for industrial purposes, for the support of revolutionary aims. Obviously, the safety of the nation, the interests of the trade unionism, and the liberty of individuals were involved in the Socialist proposals, which, happily for the welfare of the nation, have not, notwithstanding Labour frantic efforts this year, found a place in the statute law of Britain. MR CARR'S ADDRESS, It is much to he regretted, of course, that parliamentary representatives such as the Member for Timaru should “waste their fragrance on the desert air” in New Zealand, which is probably the lpast hard-hit by economic conditions of all countries in the world, while the Labour Admin-

istrations in Britain and Australia are literally at their wits end to know how to carry on. Mr Clyde Carr is positive that he has made a world-shaking discovery. He knows what is wrong with business; so much so that lie feels almost tempted to assume the role of crusader and lead a revolution against the entrenched foes of the workers. We can imagine the impulsive feelings of the Member for Timaru, but we rather fancy that not even the opportunity _ of crossing swords with the designing capitalists at Home or in Australia would lure him from the Timaru electorate where he has found such a happy hunting ground. Strangely enough, Mr Carr gave the impression of being a little uncertain of his position as he faced members of the general public who attended his mass meeting of protest. There was nothing of the crusader : spirit about the gathering, and second thoughts, we rather fancy, will convince the Member for Timaru, that after all, very few are likely to respond to Hie call ’ for volunteers to join the ! revolutionary movement; on the [ contrary, it can be said without ; fear of contradiction that the ; average level-headed worker is ' very much perturbed just now about the immediate future. But ; Mr Carr gave him no fresh : inspiration to face tjie facts of the situation. It is all very * spectacular for Mr Carr to blame * the banks, and it may tickle the ears of the groundlings to be informed that the world-wide * depression has been forced upon , the nations by the capitalist, who is supposed to be reaping rich ' harvests from the collapse of business. But it is passing strange that while Mr Carr and irresponsible spokesmen of s the New Zealand Labour Party , are blaming the banks and are ■' cherishing in their minds the 1 Arm conviction that a. day’s hang--1 ing among the capitalists would 3 bring relief, no less a Labour - leader that Mr J. H. Thomas has 3 felt .bound to point out that the 1 trouble with Britain (and this is i reflected out here), is that the l civil war in China lias so upset - the business of the East, that the e long-established and richly proi fitable markets in China with e its multitude of millions Of a customers has collapsed and Y British business has suffered i’ enormously because of this unt happy state of affairs. We do i no t know whether Mr Carr li or Mr Thomas knows most about e economic problems, but we do I know that if Mr Carr aspires to a render useful service to the d country he ought to cease talkiug e nonsense and face the stern s realities of existing conditions.