WHAT THE PAPERS SAY

Observer, Volume XL, Issue 8, 25 October 1919, Page 4

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY

ANOTHER point of interest is that, while the newspapers are prohibited from publishing the dividends on races, the Telegraph Department permits these dividends to be sent to bookmakers and private individuals, and they become common property. The whole legislation dealing with racecourse gambling is farcical in the extreme. The chief purpose it has served has been to create an army of. illicit gamblers. Masterton "Age."

Nations intent on peace will prudently adopt for themselves the principle of a mere skeleton peace-force of long-service men, which the Allies have rightly forced on Germany. Prussian and general history furnishes full many a solemn warning of the danger of a dominant militarism which is so common an outcome of a victorious war. This is a matter which, in these daj's of new born peace, the people (by referendum) and not the Cabinet, should decide. One great enemy of the world has been defeated on "the field of fame, fresh and gory." The world is now faced with a worse than Prussian enemy—with the profiteers and the meat and other trusts. There is no longer need to fight the Kaiser and his Prussian. Junkers. Their teeth are pulled, their hands are paralysed. But an "awful price"—perhaps wide-spread-social chaos—will be paid unless our war-worn civilisation secures a speedy strangle-grip upon a still more callous foe than Prussian militarism. Until that is. done, New Zealand would be better employed in making hempen ropes than in practising the goose-step. — Auckland "Month."

If electors are -to be given only the choice of regarding themselves as Bolsheviks if not followers of Mr. Massey, and if—as is the case— at least half the electors look upon the Massey party as a menace to the true welfare of the country they are more likely to decide that if Bolshevism, instead of being a grave danger to civilisation, is nothing worse than opposition to the Massey party, then it is wiser and more patriotic to be Bolshevist rather than Masseyite. The actual position is that Mr. Massey has made a grave blunder. Ho may not have intended to convey what he says, he may not have meant to declare that all who cannot accept him and his party are Bolsheviks or I.W.W.'s or "of that ilk," but he has said it. If this foolish utterance has any effect, it is much more likely to whitewash true Bolshevism, and lead New Zealand electors to regard it on Mr. Massey's showing as harmless or praiseworthy, than to ensure another lease of power for the reactionary party of accumulated wealth and land aggregation known as "Reform."—Napier "Telegraph."

"It is understood that Mr Massey, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, hastened off home immediately on the signing of the Treaty. Meanwhile Mr. Hughes is detained in Europe by public business. These two colonial statesmen stand in sharp contrast before the public Mr. Massey has done notable service at once to New Zealand and the Empire. Mr. Hughes has perhaps served Australia very well, but so far as the Empire is concerned his persistent interference in highly controversial British questions, has earned

for him a position which seems to demand a much smaller measure of gratitude." — Newcastle (England) "Chronicle."

Mr. Massey is on particularly strong ground in the final paragraph of his statement, in which he advocates a union of forces comprehending all who honestly desire to promote the welfare, and prosperity of the Dominion. This is the one really vital political issue at present raised. Excluding the Labour-So-cialist extremists, with whom it is impossible for any loyal or rightthinking- man to parley, there is slight difference of opinion as to the lines that national policy ought to follow. But as matters are ordered in the House of Representatives, those who hold much the same views on policy questions, and are therefore in a position to work unitedly for national ends, are divided into hostile camps under a system which Mr. Massey rightly describes as demoralising. — Wellington "Dominion."

If State employership could produce as much useful work as private employership, at the same cost, the nationalisers would undoubtedly have a strong case., State employership, being without personal needs, would have all the private employer's private profit to use as a profit-sharing fund. Under an ideal arrangment, the State employer, having made all the financial reserves required on account of economic considerations, and having established a superannuation fund, would still have profits to distribute direct in a profit-sharing way, which profits would provide such an inducement to work that the employees would redouble their efforts, * and both employee and consumer would share in the cumulative prosperity of increased production. Academically, this plan- is perfect; theoretically, State employership would benefit all by eliminating the capitalist and middleman. But the whole argument rests on the initial assumption that State, employership would be equal or superior to private employership in the accomplishment of useful work. And that is the weak point. "I am unaware," says Mr. Lloyd Geor,e "of any case where men work bettor for the State than for a private employer."—Wellington "Post."

Some idea of the relative economic standing of the so-called middle class with respect to what is known as Labour is to be gathered, apparently, from a little statement made at Harvard University in conjunction with the university campaign for an endowment fund ample enough to allow increased salaried' to professors. "A motorman," says the statement alluded to, "gets sixty cents an hour, a professor eighteen. Which is worth more, minding the. train or training the mind?" That Labour is relatively in considerably better status than the middle class workers—the salaried folk—is so obvious of late that to state it is trite. Labour is quite aware of this fact and is supremely indifferent thereto, although it is the middle class which feels acutely every upword throb of tho Labour pendulum. --New Plymouth "News." * * * In industrial circles there is a constant clamour for increased wages. This is invariably followed by a newaward in favour of the worker. With each increase, there is a simultaneous rise in the price of commodities. The professional man, the pensioner, and others who are outside the pale of unionism, are made to suffer. The clergyman is, perhaps, the most unfortunate of them all. It is not his nature to complain, and yet his stipend is gradually becoming so negligible that he can scarce keep body and soul together. The Anglican Synod at Napier has, at length, passed a resolution upon the subject. It is to be hoped that this will be ■supported by other Synods, and by the churches in general, and that those who receive spiritual guidance and help will be made to pay their pastors a living wage. — Masterton "Age."