The Timaru Herald MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1932. OBJECTIVE OF LANNGISM.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 19155, 11 April 1932, Page 6

The Timaru Herald MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1932. OBJECTIVE OF LANNGISM.

“It is most amazing,” said the Premier of Western Australia, referring to Mr Lang’s countermove in reply to the edict of the Commonwealth Cabinet. “Mr Lang,” he added, “cannot be allowed to defy the authority of the High Court any more than any other citizen.” It is rather early for such outbursts. The Federal Cabinet of Australia has tackled an exceedingly difficult task with exemplary courage and quiet determination to restore and preserve the credit of a worthy people. It is pointed out, by the press of Sydney, that the Federal Cabinet is not likely to be rushed into action by Mr Lang or any of the champions of default and repudiation. “The Federal Government,” said a Cabinet Minister on Saturday, “will act first and then tell the people.” Mr Lang realises, of course, that the High Court judgment imposes on Premiers as well as on the people an obligation to obey the law. The safest course, for the Federal Cabinet to pursue, is to act with caution and without haste, in dealing with one of the most difficult situations that has ever confronted the political leaders of Australia. Obviously, a false move, at the present juncture, notwithstanding the decision of the High Court, might easily prejudice the status of the Federal Cab met in popular esteem; indeed, there have been so many ups and downs in political affairs in Australia, that no one can confidently forecast the future of any political party. Moreover, Coalition Cabinets have shown in the past a rather unhappy and somewhat disturbing tendency to dissolve under the sledge-hammer thrusts of internal difficulties. Already Mr Lang has tried two rather spectacular counter-strokes. His first retaliatory move w#is to close the offices of the taxation department, which place, under lock and key all records and assessments. Xo doubt Mr Lang fancied he saw in this move a gesture of defiance that would appeal to his supporters. The State Premier’s next move was to write to the Federal Prime Minister and complain of the Commonwealth having repudiated the agreement of 1923, under which New South Wales undertook to act as collecting authority for Federal and State land and income taxes. Hence, said he, he had no alternative but to cancel the agreement forthwith. It is a long way to 1923 and the financial relationships between the Federal and State authorities have undergone upsetting changes in the interval. As a matter of fact, the Federal Government has no desire to clash with the State Government under the leadership of Mr Lang, and no one knows that better than does Mr Lang. It is well known that the head of the Federal Cabinet still retains strong Labour sympathies, and is probably a more reliable friend of the cause of the working man, than is Mr Lang, with all his queer notions and financial recklessness. It is now known, we think, that the Labour movement in New South Wales faces the grim prospect of early' disruption. The Bulletin says: “Thousands of idle men have been buoyed up by the expectation that this or that plan of Mr Lang and the other politicians would set things right. Two institutions are thereby engendered; the State has to face the risk of a revolutionary movement; the unions have to face the danger of wholesale breakaways,” It is clear that many so-called Labour men in Australia are working for a crash that would please the Soviet, but wellinformed commentators confess that it is hard to understand why the others forming the bulk of organised labour do not busily interest themselves in a scheme to put the unemployed where they might at least earn a little for themselves and have something more to look forward to. It is clear, now, that Mr Lang is enjoying the questionable experience of watching some rather unwelcome chickens come home to roost, but his resentment at and determined opposition to the action of the Commonwealth Cabinet, in making every possible endeavour to save the good name of the people of Australia, can be explained by the allegation that has been repeatedly hurled at the Lang Planners, that they care nothing for the good name of Australia since they have quite another objective in view.

MR MELLON IN LONDON. Regarded as “the greatest Secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton”—a characterisation both endorsed and ridiculed in the United States—Mr Andrew W. Mellon, the newly-arrived Ambassador of the United States in London, recently stated that he never really wanted the Cabinet post which he held for eleven years—a term that has been exceeded only by one other Treasury head, namely Albert Gallatin, another Pennsylvanian, who served from 1801 to 1813. “I had no substantial reason to refuse, but I really did not want to come,” he said in a press interview, explaining his acceptance of the Secretaryship upon President Harding’s insistence. But he went to Washington, a shy, quiet man of immense wealth, whose outstanding personal habit was the smoking of small, delicately-shaped cigars. Generally speaking, his appolnt-

ment to the Court of St. James was well received; indeed, although some of the more critical of the Democratic journals alleged coolness between the President and Mr Mellon, and had something to say about “dropping the pilot’’ of the prosperity era,” and “kicking him up-stairs,” it is generally agreed that the United States will be well assured that Mr Mellon will do his country honour and serve it well in the rounding out of his career in its most important diplomatic post. President Hoover, in announcing Mr Mellon’s transfer to London, spoke of “the critical situation facing all countries in their international relations, the manifold economic and other problems,” and he added: “I have decided to call upon one of the wisest and most experienced public servants to accept a position which will enable him, after many years of distinguished public service at home, to render equal service to his country in a foreign field.” It is interesting to mention, in view of the international interest aroused by Mr Mellon’s arrival in the Old Country, that London political and diplomatic circles expressed themselves as well pleased by the Mellon appointment. Several newspapers Sailed him “a great friend of Great Britain,” and indeed, so favourable and laudatory was the comment on the coming of Mr Mellon to London that the United States press immediately expressed fears that Mr Mellon’s: presence at the United States Embassy in London would raise hopes that some steps would be taken towards a revision of war debts. It is generally recognised, however, notwithstanding American fears, that the ambassadorship will give one of the most distinguished American statesmen an opportunity to render invaluable service to humanity, not only on the problem of war debts and reparations; but in the field of international diplomacy where so many vital problems await solution; indeed, his first utterance on arrival in London gives some inkling of the breadth of his vision and his confidence in the capacity of the nations to rise superior to present-day difficulties. LABOUR AND THE COALITION PLAN. Mr Holland and his legions, the Press messages from the capital city suggest, have declared war on the Three Year Plan of the Coalition Administration, to restore the financial and economic equilibrium of the Dominion. The plan involves, we are told: (1) A graduated reduction in the wages and salaries of public servants, ranging from 5 per cent, to 12 1 per cent, and 15 per cent, cut in the salaries of Ministers of the Crown. (2) A reduction of 20 per cent, in the rates of interest and rent operative until April, 1935. (3) Sweeping reductions of varying percentages in practically all classes of pensions. (4) The imposition of a special stamp duty of sixpence for every five shillings on receipts for incomes from Government, local body and public company securities. (5) The fixation by Order-in-Council of maximum rates of interest payable on deposits with savings banks and building or investment societies. (6) The determination of conditions on which trading companies may accept moneys on deposit. It is freely stated that Mr Holland and the Parliamentary Labour Party threaten to exhaust the forms of Parliamentary procedure in their efforts to reject the Government’s proposals, and if possible to eject the offending Administration from office. Already one or two scenes have been witnessed in the course of the debates in which Labour Members played a prominent part. On one occasion somebody whispered “humbug,” which a rather sensitive Chairman of Committee ruled as unparliamentary, only to suffer correction at the hands of “Mr Speaker.” But the atmosphere seems to become more dangerously charged with the elements of an explosion, as the session proceeds, and already two leading speakers on the Labour benches have suffered “naming,” 'with the consequent “suspension” on refusal to withdraw the offending utterances. It must be admitted, of course, that generally speaking, all Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives are most respectful of the rulings of “Mr Speaker,” and are most anxious to maintain the dignity of the people’s Parliament. Obviously, times have changed even within the last half century. In his book, "Elections and Recollections,” in which Sir Alfred E. Pease looks back fifty years, he tells of what Gladstone describes as “the most extraordinary” scene in his Parliamentary career, when in spite of “Ben” Stanley (the Liberal Whip) polling Lord Douglas, whom he brought into the division lobby “in articulo mortis, in a Bath chair, with mouth wide open, eyes set, absolutely unconscious, and practically a dead man,” “amid all the hubbub and row” the Government was defeated by one vote. Moreover, no Parliamentarian, not even the most fiery-tongued of them all, now descends to the personalities that were the fashion in the ’eighties and the ’nineties. Gladstone remarks, for instance, when he found it difficult to catch what a certain M.P. was saying, would completely upset the New Zealand House of Representatives, if repeated to-day. Turning to a neighbour Gladstone said in a loud voice: “What is this snivelling dog saying? I can’t hear a word”!