WHAT OTHER WRITERS ARE SAYING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17836, 3 May 1926, Page 8

WHAT OTHER WRITERS ARE SAYING.

THE AUTOCRACY OF LABOUR. For cool-cheek and sheer cussedness commend us to the autocrats who, per niedium of the Glen Alton Compan\-, provide a grateful public with the coal necessary for culinary and locomotive purposes. It was the fate of two employees of the company, who had been engaged on outside work for the past eighteen months, to be selected for promotion, and emplox-ed as miners, presumabl}' at an increased salary. But the truckers had been overlooked, and, according to these modern despots, the unionists, the truckers had priority of claim. In the second case, these autocrats of the coalfield objected to the employment of two men, who had only recently arrived in this realm of King Demos, when there were members of the union at Huntly available! Naturall>q the company meekly suggested that ii\4his democratic age they should, surely possess the right to choose their own employes. This prerogative, they contended, was theirs by inalienable right. “Send the directors to* the mine to disfluSs the matter with us,” said; the miners, “or we cease operations forthwith.” The company replied thac under no circumstances would the directors visit the mine until work was resumed. The miners’ secretary, harbinger of peace (?), replied that the men would not resume work until the matter was discussed. And there you are! There must be a “show-down” on this business some day.—“ Times,” Wellington. « « MORALITY AND THE MIGRANT. America has been made to look very fooiish in the world’s eyes by the high-sounding morality of her immigration law, which says that any alien who prior to entry was guilty*- of a crime or felony or misdemeanour involving moral turpitude shall be deported. Countess Cathcart was temporarily shut out of America under this clause because she had been divorced, and the amused nations asked what would happen if a similar law were enforced on the other side of the Atlantic against a country which has done so much to develop the divorce habit. The demand at each frontier for proof that the tourist had lived a blameless life would send many of the touristi back home before they had seen much. The phrase Sounds very well, and it accords well with the American weakness for moral generalisations, but what precisely does mofal turpitude mean ? In which of the many misdemeanours is it involved? How much or how little of it is needed to demand the return of the exile? Is passage through the divorce court proof of moral turpitude by both parties? If not, will each case be decided on its merits, and will each party’s word be taken, or will a file of the proceedings be necessary'?

All these questions are involved in the present law, and they cannot be either asked or answered without proving that “the law is an ass.” The plain English of turpitude is baseness, and to hold that an Immigration Commissioner is fit to assess the baseness or the exaltation of every trans-Atlantic passenger is to assume the reincarnation of Solomon and all the sages is one poor human frame. The alteration of the “qualification” for deportment to imprisonment will probably result in quite sufficient protection for the moralities, without giving an opportune for literal-minded officials to propagate absurdities which tend to make the whole nation a laughingstock.—“ Star,” Auckland. FLOUR AND DUMPING. A deputation from Canterbury on Thursday urged the Government, through the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Q. Hawken, to exercise its anti-dump ing powers with regard to Australian flour. The deputation was not open to the Press. This, in such important matters as affect the food of the people, was a pity. Mr Hawken, it is reported, was informed that flour was being imported from Australia at £2 per ton under its price in the Commonwealth, to the detriment of Dominion wheat growers and millers. It was not explained if the Australian price current was for export or for the local market —and there is generally a wide difference. It is understood that the deputation found Mr Hawken unsympathetic. What official response he will make to its requests we have yet to learn, but he is reported to have said: “I see no reason why the Government should alter its decision.” That decision was to give the wheat grower the free market he insisted upon having. Importing of wheat and flour has become absolutely necessary' to meet a 50 per cent shortage of production of New Zealand-grown wheat. If it paid farmers to use their land for purposes other than wheat, then as business men they were right in doing so: but neither they nor flour millers can reasonably expect more protection through the Customs than they now enjoy.—“Post,” Wellington.