PUBLIC OPINION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17564, 15 June 1925, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION.

WHAT OTHER WRITERS ARE SAYING. LABOUR COES INTO POWER. Before the final figures were announced the Sydney "Sun,'’ discussing the results of the polling in the New South Wales election, said that “neither the Progressives, with their ten cr eleven seats, nor the Nationalists with their thirty-five or thirtyseven, can squarely claim as much right to rule as Labour with its fortyfive or forty-seven.” The final figures have shown, however, that constitutionally there is no doubt that Labour has a majority in the suffrages of the people of New South Wales and is the biggest of the three parties in the Legislative Assembly. Politically, too, there seems no reason why Labour . should not go into office. It is plain, from the largely increased Labour vote in the country, that the claim of the Progressive leader is valid—that more seats would have been lost to Labour had there been no Progressive candidates, for more and more is the coup. try getting the idea that Nationalism which is essentially the Countiy Party, is controlled in Sydney. Unquestionably the anti-Labour forces have effectively engineered themselves out of office, and the party having the nearest approach to a mandate from the State has the right to take up the reins of office. Certainly it is not much of a mandate, but the electors have given their verdict and the parties must give effect to that decision. The incoming Government, however, faces an unenviable task. Members of the community, too, outside labour circles, arc distinctly apprehensive.—“Timaru Herald.” CHEMICAL WARFARE. The international conference which for some weeks past has been considering at Geneva proposals for the regulation of the traffic in arms and munitions has been prompted by the American representative, Mr Burton, to take measures for the drafting of a protocol designed to bring about the abolition of chemical and bacteriological warfare. It is a humanitarian task to which the delegates at Geneva- are committed, but it presents difficulties even greater than are likely to occur sanctity or blessedness about u protocol. Not all th© agreements evolved at Geneva will stand the hard test of practical experience. To sccui-9 the abolition of the use of certain weapons in warfare while the abolition of warfare itself is still unsecured means an attempt to eliminate the lesser evil, which is comprehended in th© greater. One© a war breaks out, the nations engaged in it do not courteously consult one another about the armaments that should be employed. They hope to secure advantage over an adversary by the use of superior weapons. And history has shown that agreements drawn up and signed in time of peace arc not invariably honoured in time of war. The price of security is becoming increasingly uncertain. If the nations can agree among themselves that chemical warfare must , be abolished, well and good. A great deal may be gained by that, and nothing will be lost. But neither protocol nor any other instrument can be creative of perfect mutual confidence. The argument that chemical warfare is a reproach! to the civilisation that has evolved it may seem unanswerable, but, for all that, it is not generally accepted. — Ci Times,” Dunedin. %* MORE ENCOURAGEMENT. Any Government that sincerely desires to do its full duty to New Zealand must submit a vigorous tourist policy. Hitherto the claims of this valuable asset have been ignored when proposals for the ensuing year’s work were being disclosed, but we can no longer afford to keep in the back-ground this potential mine of wealth. For this reason it is encouraging to receive from the Publicity Office convincing evidence that the Department is beginning to realise its duty. The pamphlets now being issued are a credit to everyone concerned, and are. we should consider, just what will create an impression on the minds of those susceptible people we hope to attract to the Dominion. We cannot understand the reluctance some persons feel at assisting the rich foreigner to spend his money, especial!'* as we can give him thrills sufficient to recompense him many times over. If Americans desire to see the world and have millions of dollars to spend on the enterprise, it would be a shortsighted poliejv to say that our keen sense of delicacy will not permic us to share in the profits. This is apparently also the view of those who conduct the Publicity Office, and the latest booklet from that quarter is one that will afford more real information than the whole of the others. — “ News,” Southland. LABOUR'S LAND POLICY. The difficulties that confront a person who assumes the task of expounding and defending the land policy of the Labour Part}- will be fully appreciated by everyone who has been following a little discussion on the subject in our columns. It is a. policy that is directed to the destruction of all rights of private ownership in land. As a necessary complement of this, it is directed also to the abrogation of the law of inheritance. That this should be so is entirely consistent with the objective of the part}-, which is the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It would be absurd to say that the land should be “socialised” and, at the same time, to recognise the right of any individual to own land. The Labour Party is, therefore, proposing something that is in complete harmony with its objective when it includes in its policy a provision that “privately-owned land shall not be sold 01* transferred except to the State.” All land, according to the Labour Part}-, must belong to the State. Consequently, its policy provides that whenever a man wishes to realise his land there can be no purchaser other than the State. All this is perfectly clear to any one who understands what the policy of the Labour Party is; and it will be recognised that the policy is a coherent one, directed to the one aim of making the community the sole owner of all land. —"Otago Daily Times.” Piave or further on? What cursed folly to run such risks!