The Timaru Herald MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1933. LABOUR DAY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19627, 23 October 1933, Page 6

The Timaru Herald MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1933. LABOUR DAY.

Thirty-four years ago an enactment tvas put through the New Zealand Parliament declaring that a day in October should henceforth be known as Labour Day, and that that day should be a public holiday. What marvellous and yet in a measure, what bewildering changes have marked the passages of the years. It can be said that it is capital which has set ten thousand looms in motion, kindled the fires of industry, and rolled into motion the wheels of commerce. Yet, upon the other hand, capital needs labour to carry out its schemes. Long years of experience have demonstrated that the two must work together, and not one against the other. What is needed is not class consciousness and class warfare, but class co-operation. Some day no doubt the golden mean yill be reached—we thought we saw it coming through the heavy clouds of the World War —but the economic millennium lies farther in the future than the eye of man can now penetrate. The setting apart of Labour Day, however, marked the official recognition of the dignity of Labour. Despite almost insuperable barriers and discouraging handicaps a marvellous change lias taken place during the last half century. Nowhere is Labour so thoroughly organised as within the confines of the British Empire; and nowhere has it acquired greater power. Labour has representatives in Parliament; by its persistent advocacy of the cause, it has had removed from the statute-books many laws that were oppressive to wageearning and tenent classes, and secured the wisest and most elaborate factory legislation to be found in the world. Organised labour unions are recognised by the State as legitimate and necessary organisations. Their rights and functions are clearly defined and universally recognised. They are regularly incorporated-; are thus made amenable to the law, and are protected by it in the exercise of their proper functions. In these respects, labour organisations, within the British Empire, are far in advance of many other countries. The World War, however, instantly and dramatically changed both the political and economic aspects of the labour situation. Politically, it practically obliterated revolutionary agitation. In the economic field, likewise, the war wrought great changes. Bursting into a period of stationary wages, trade depression and unemployment, the war restored industrial prosperity by its huge demands on industry. We know now that the world enjoyed a hectic artificial prosperity, bought by inflated currencies and mortgaged futures. Everyone, however, was encouraged to believe that if they would only “carry through” they would be rewarded by a “different world after the War.” The world was expected to march straight into a sort of Utopia in which the lion would lie down with the lamb! But there was no substance in this sanguine vision; it was simply a nebulous hope born of war excitement and fed by platform phrases such as a “land fit for heroes to live in,” and the blessed world “reconstruction.” It is not necessary to recall what followed. The eud brought profound disappointment and disillusionment followed by equally deep irritation and discontent. But perhaps the greatest gain made by Labour in the World War was the success of the moderate working class elements of Western Europe, headed by the powerful British Labour group, which succeeded in getting specific labour clauses written into the Versailles Peace Treaty; indeed, this formal recognition of working class interests in an international diplomatic document was a remarkable innovation hailed by many observers as “Labour’s International Magna Charta.” Furthermore, the labour clauses of the Versailles Treaty have not remained a mere pious aspiration, but the real value of the new charter will be appreciated to the full when the world marches forward into more prosperous times. In the meantime, Labour Day in 103” comes to a world beset with the baffling problem of providing work for millions who are without employment. But the world is not without hope—it does not know defeat. In many countries, particularly in Britain, industrial conditions are at least better than they were a year or two ago. Meanwhile, the thinking minorities in all the threatened classes are pondering the problems and are taking counsel together. Whether they will succeed ip adjusting the differences that beset the world to-day and overcoming financial and economic difficulties by mutual compromise and constructive co-operation, remains to be seen.

THE LEAGUE UNDER FIRE. Although the German Government has merely served formal notice on Geneva of the decision to withdraw from membership of the League of Nations, without offering reasons for this action, it, is interesting to observe that under the terms of the Covenant, membership in the League involves two years’ notice before

full release from responsibility can be gained. As a matter of fact, Germany cannot withdraw from the League of Nations until all her international obligations and all her obligations under the Covenant have been fulfilled. It is not surprising therefore that Germany’s campaign to discredit the League and disparage its status should find utterance through unofficial channels. The unofficial broadcast issued from Berlin describing the League as an “anti-Fascist” mass meeting, designed to find a mouthpiece for Jews and Marxists, reveals the mind of Germany. This statement is the most barefaced propaganda. The purpose is, of course, to attempt to thrust devastating wedges into the united front now confronting Germany in the harmonious relationships existing between Britain, France, Italy, and the United States on the question of limitation of armaments. The voice of Germany is less misleading in its other deductions. “The League of Nations,” says the pronouncement issued from Berlin, “in addition to its international failures has lost its last claim to be regarded as the universal organisation of the civilised world.” Then comes an attempt to justify withdrawal from Geneva, because, we are told, unofficially it is true, that “Germany can no longer participate in such mass demonstrations which caricature international relationships.” In a measure the League of Nations has merited the most severe castigation because of its failure to demonstrate its capacity to marshal world opinion in defence of the obligations accepted by its members. The United States of America and Soviet Russia have never accepted membership with the League, and international cooperation has been weakened on that account. The withdrawal of Japan because the ideals of the League hampered the operations of warlike Nipponese in the invasion of China, followed by the resignation of Germany, completes a group of Great Powers who prefer to escape the definite obligations imposed by the Covenant of the League of Nations. So far, however, Germany’s real purpose in withdrawing from Geneva has not been disclosed.

NAZI APPEAL TO LONDON. The day before Herr Hitler surprised Europe by his sensational announcement of Germany’s withdrawal from Geneva. Herr Alfred Rosenberg, in an editorial in the Nazi organ Volkischer Beobachter appealed to England to save civilisation. He declared that might, not right, lies beneath all the phrases with which the various capitals are feeding the world: “The Allied Powers are pushing armaments to extremes,” he says. “The French are as peaoe-loving as the Germans, and equally ready to delimit their spheres of Influence; but the armament industry Is doing big business and, fearing to lose profits, clamours through the Press for ever more armaments. It influences French political circles and artificially stimulates a feeling of security. “Thus, selfish private interests threaten the peace of Europe and corrupt her equilibrium.

The Nazi journalist insists that London has a big influence, and that if England possesses responsible rulers prepared to throw their weight on the other side, they may save Europe. Otherwise, he declares, a serious outbreak may occur, when the world will be shaken by revolutionary convulsions and a racial awakening in all continents. The problem is now so acute, we are now told quite seriously, that it involves the fate of Europe and the British Empire. Is there a kernel of truth in the interpretation this Nazi writer places on the trend of European affairs? We are afraid there is! Geneva, on its part, however, if the framers of the report on the work of the League voice the views of those associated with its work, seems quite satisfied with the manifold activities in which the League of Nations has been engaged. Among the disputes mentioned are those between China and Japan, Bolivia and Paraguay, Colombia and Peru, Great Britain and Persia. But what have been the results? The dispute between Iraq and France is mentioned, and the clash of interests in Greenland in which Norway and Denmark were involved was smoothed out by the International Court. The annual report records the work of the Disarmament Conference and the preparations made at Geneva for the World Monetary and Economic Conference. Both, so far, have failed! Various issues arising out of the government of the Saar territory and out of relations between Poland and the Free City of Danzig confronted the League of Nations during the year under review, while the persistent demands for the better protection of minorities seem to have been received by the League of Nations with somewhat cold indifference. The plain fact is that Geneva has hopelessly failed in all major issues it, has had to face. The League has been very busy with minor problems, but it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a good deal of the German criticism has some foundation in fact; because the principal members of the League—harassed by fear, suspicion and distrust—have been unwilling to put the letter and spirit of the Covenant into operation in their relations one with the other.