The Star. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1814. TYPICAL TORY TACTICS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 1125, 19 December 1914, Page 8

The Star. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1814. TYPICAL TORY TACTICS

Our good friends the citizens of the United States have a remarkable facility for shelving an argument by the simple expedient of referring their .antagonist to the Constitution of the States and to the utterances of the fathers' of their country. Indeed, ;.ho Shades of the founders of the United States are so often invoked, and frequently on such trivial pretexts, that on© sympathises with the the soul of an American patriot, 'for truly it is never permitted its fair share of rest. There- has never been a great social or

political movement in the country that Its adherents and opponents did not alike appeal to their ancient Constitution—brought forth in blood and fire—'and to the sainted dust of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Therefore it comes as no surprise to find a paper like the San Francisco "Chronicle " opposing the institution of an eight hours' day in California on the ground that "this republic was .organised on the basis of a formal dc- \ claration that all mankind are endowed with- the inalienable right to personal liberty. It is now proposed to

deprive all residents of California of the liberty to work over eight hours a day for any person but himself."

The olcl parrot cry of interference with personal liberty has ever been raised against legislative measures tint were framed in the interests of the masses. When women and little chilardn slaved like animals in English sS>al mines, or were wrecked in body and soul through long houra of labour in ill-ventilated factories, there were plenty of well-meaning people who saw in any attempt to alleviate these un- •" duly harsh conditions of labour an interference with the liberty of the suovject. This shallow conception of pergonal liberty was, however, not destined to last for long. The eloquent fcttacks of men like Garlyle and Iluski'i <>n the laissez faire philosophy aroused tho public of England to newer and J;.rger conceptions of personal rights, find they say that their wretched factory system, with its boasted freedom of choice, was the blackest of tyrannies that ground the souls and reut the bodies of thousands of men, women "find children. Utilitarianism had taught that every person was born iequal, with the same degree of intellectual and moral capacity, and A hat individual differences were accounted for solely on the ground of upringing. But modern science was • not content with such a simple explanation, and it soon demonstrated that human personality was a great deal more complex than had hitherto been imagined, and that everyone was ;iot born equal as far as intellectual and moral endowments were concerned. The force of this argument soon made itself felt in the social and economic life of the nation, and men began slowly to. recognise .hat their boasted conceptions of liberty and equality were false. It was a false liberty that'sanctioned a w-called "freedom of contract" that| compelled men and women to work fourteen hours a day in a coal mine or in a factory. It was a false notion of equality that dictated a contract between a rich cotton spinner and a starving labourer with a family dependent upon him.

So gradually in Ei gland it was recr.gnised that the liberty to work children in mines, the liberty to sweat men and women at the lowest menial tasas v?as not true liberty at all. . Then the reaction came, and ever since that time legislation has attempted to adjust ihe inequalities .of birth and circumstances l\v. protecting labour from the harsh conditions imposed on it by exploitevs p.nd monopolists. We who live in New Zealand know something of the beneficent effects of social legislation, and we can afford to smilo' at the argu-

adduced by papers like the Francisco "Chronicle" against the reduction, of the hours of-labour in California. The appeal it makes to 'he republic's " formal declaration that «dl mankind are endowed. with the aliennblo right to personal liberty" is a mere platitude and is no argument at nIL But in case this appeal to authority and the glorious Constitution fails, tho paper warns its readers that in- the event of an eight hours' day "being enforced, " all would leave the State who could." This reminds us of the cry we used to hear in this Dominion about " capital leaving the country" whenever progressive legislation was suggested. In keeping with its characteristically Tory policy, the paper in question annihilates its opponents with. this brilliant denunciation of the supporters of the eight hours' day proposal: "The proposed eighthour law is an emanation of the infernal spirit of hatred which permeates n considerable element of our population, and which is bent on the destruction or confiscation of all property, the suppression of personal liberty and enterprise, and the institution of a Government of loafers, by loafers and , for loafers."