The Star. TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1928. A READY-MADE DECISION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18546, 21 August 1928, Page 8

The Star. TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1928. A READY-MADE DECISION.

A MAJORITY of the City Councillors, we feel sure, had made up their minds to go on with the scheme of “ improving ” the Square before they heard last night’s deputation. This impression is confirmed by the rather hostile and far from judicial reception accorded to the deputation, for it must be clear, when a citizen like Mr George Harper has to protest against the nature of the examination to which he is subjected, and when another member of the deputation is accused of shuffling and declines to answer further questions, that tlic case is not being discussed altogether on its merits. Then again, the reasons given by the Mayor for persisting in a course that is objectionable to a very large body of the citizens confirmed the earlier impression. For instance, the Mayor said that a fundamental and essential weakness of the deputation’s case was that it did not give the Council a glimpse of an alternative. This is a very weak excuse. The deputation made it clear that it was not opposed to the erection of central conveniences; that it desired to preserve Cathedral Square as an open space in accordance with the clear intentions of the pioneers; and that permanent buildings would not only be out of place but might become useless in view of the reconstruction of the tramway .system. It was not their job to suggest alternatives, allhougli there are enough of these available, and the Council, in its municipal market site, has a section of land that was bought specifically for the purposes under discussion, and can be used for those purposes under an Act now before Parliament. However, no argument was too weak to bring against the deputation. For instance, past Councils were blamed for allowing picture theatres to be built on Cathedral Square frontages, as if they could possibly have been kept out. And the point was made that no protest had been made in the past against the present structure. This, of course, was quite inaccurate. The “ Star ” has never ceased to protest against the gradual encroachment on the central portion of the Square, and it is common knowledge that the tram shelter has been a sore point with city beautifiers ever since it was erected. But the Council scemS to be quite impervious to argument, and it has decided to go on with the objectionable scheme. For our own part we have all along thought that the opponents of the scheme should test the matter in the Courts. Mr George Harper says that he advised the carriers many years ago that the tram shelter was an illegal structure. If his opinion was sound then, it ought to be sound now. It would be interesting, in any case, to see the matter gone into judicially and not hysterically.

LESSONS from the senseless and suicidal great strike of 1920 have not been wasted on the leaders of British Labour. Little has been heard recently of the bombastic utterances of certain addle-paled Communist agitators, and it is quite clear that their influence is now a negligible factor in big cities and industrial centres throughout England. Evidence of the welcome change is furnished in a London cablegram published to-day. The message states that at the Trade Union Congress in Swansea next month, “ the principal consideration will be given to Lord Melchett’s report on tlie joint conference between employers and employees. The report raises the issue of industrial co-operation in opposition to the theory of class war which appeared to hold sway in the councils and unions before the events of the past two years brought disillusionment. A very large favourable majority is anticipated for the General Council’s policy.” It is a fact that British workers have lately adopted a sensible attitude. Instead of looking on their employers as necessary but deadly enemies who can only be approached by a display of force, they have awakened to the fact that they may achieve their ends much more easily if those same enemies become their friends. If Lord Melchett’s report is adopted by tlie Trade Union Congress, industrial peace in Britain will be established on tlie firmest of foundations. Mutual goodwill will have taken the place of class-war propaganda.

A CIRCULAR issued by the New Zealand Rugby Union ou tlie subject of rough or foul play bears out everything that the “ Star ” has been urging in this direction for years past. On July 16, 1927, wc pointed out in connection with tlie ordering off of two players in a Ranfurly Shield match between Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay that the New Zealand Union would not be doing its duty if it allowed tlie provincial unions concerned to “ whitewash ” tlie players ordered off. On June 22, 1927, wc stated that the Canterbury Rugby Union “ would be well-advised to deal as sternly as possible with all cases of foul play. Penalties will have to be increased if tlie game is to be kept clean. There have been bad examples of rough play even on the oval at Lancaster Park, and the infection seems to have spread to some of the smaller clubs.” On May 16, 1928, we criticised the Canterbury Rugby Union for imposing a comparatively short term of suspension on a man ordered off for the third time. On June 11, 1928, we suggested that tlie Rugby Unions should appoint persons other than the referee to report o.n such rough play as escaped the notice of the referee. The New Zealand Union supports these views, saying that there is “ a tendency to undue leniency, and that greater punishment should bo inflicted than is in vogue at present.” The circular is timely, and it is also a sign that the New Zealand Union is coming back to its old convictions. It certainly did not handle the Wairarapa-Hawke’s Bay incident of 1927 in accordance with the spirit of its 1928 circular.