MAJESTIC THEATRE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 209, 4 September 1934, Page 7

MAJESTIC THEATRE

“TARZAN AND HIS MATE” “Tarzan and His Alate,” which narks the return to the screen of be ohuny Weismuller, world's champion th wimmer, is at the Majestic Theatre, us Jattles with crocodiles, lions, and T( hinos, a race between rival parties-of at reasure seekers for the Valley of nu vory, where the elephants go when th hey die, and the attempt of two white ye nen to entice back to civilisation the th icautiful mate of Tarzan, are the th undamenlals of the film. The expedi- sc ion of Harry Holt and Martin Arling.on sets out because two rival white nen steal a inarch on Holt and Arling;on, and immediately there begins a eries of almost incredible adventures. ! vith Tarzan rallying his wild animals o make a dramatic rescue of his mate. “Looking for Trouble.” ' Spencer Tracy, Jack Oakie and Con- m itance Cummings are the featured ni players in “Looking for Trouble,” the G loinedy-drama which will head the H programme at the Majestic Theatre to- G[ morrow. A fascinating glimpse behind I the scenes of “ Tclephondoiu” is of- ” feted in “Looking for Troubie, ’’ ae-fast-moving and romantic story of adventure- One of the scenes i.s taken in the Chinatown telephone exchange in San Francisco, where all of the operators —native girls in Chinese dress speak both Chinese and English with equal fluency. The story combines comedy, two romances and plenty or exciting adventure, all centred round two “trouble-shooters,” the official L Litle for the intrepid linesmen who w brave blizzard, fire, storm, and flood t in order that man’s communication ti with his fellows may not be inter- P rupted. Spencer Tracy and Jack ii Oakie are the team of adventurous f trouble-hunters who have some thrill- d ing experiences with wire-tappers and p gangsters, involving them in rhe solv- Ji mg of mysterious deaths and bank rob- tl beries. They finally find themselves on a: top of swaying telephone poles while -s the earth below them is rent asunder c by an earthquake. 11 ~ ~ a b Union Congress has not closed its eyes 0 to these facts. It has recognised, too, t , that it is nonsense to assume that trade unionism is a stronger tie than citizenship In consequence of these misgivings’it has been found necessary to re- t( define the atitude of the Labour move- v men-t towards war, and this is set out y in a statement approved by a joint conference of the general council, the national executive of the Labour Party, and the executive of the Parliamentary e Labour Party. It awaits endorsement by the full Trades Union Congress and fJ the national conference of the Labour Party, but. broadly speaking, it is pretty sure of adoption. Indeed, in its new form there are many Conservatives who would subscribe to it; The statement sets forth that Labour’s foreign policy is based on the collective peace system, which means a League oi i Nations plus such co-operation between the League and non-niember States as f may be established either on the Pact of Paris or other treaties, or by any < other means. “Labour policy,” it is ‘ declared, “is directed to develop the i collective system in such a way as to ( make it a sure guarantee of peace. 1 “Labour believes thaJ- the old nega ( tive, backward-looking competitive idea of maintaining balance of power • as the final goal of British foreign 1 policy must be abjured once for all. It . was based on belief in State absolutism, international anarchy, and the inevitability of war. Because of this new faith, and this new goal in foreign policy, Labour approaches the League from a standpoint entirely different from that of the Conservatives.” The statement at this point, however, goes on to distinguish between “war of an aggressive character” and “war undertaken in defence of the collective peace system,” and to this extent it differs sharply from the October resolution. Labour, the statement declares, is emphatically opposed to any form of aggressive war, but it recognises that there may be circumstances in which the Government of Great Britain might have to use its military and naval forces in support of the League in restraining an aggressor nation which declined to submit to the League’s authority, and which flagrantly used military measures in defiance of its pledged word. Here we have our odd friend the 1924 Protocol cropping up, but as a guarded generality it will not provoke much opposition. Labour’s policy, it proceeds, is directed (a) to expounding and clarifying the undertaking not to resort to war by a non-aggression treaty, backed by a definition of aggression, and ultimately by revision of the Covenant; (b) to providing machinery and obligations for the final settlement of all disputes by pacific means, including facilities for peaceful changes in the status quo; (c) to ridding the wold of all national armed forces, substituting therefor an international police force under the League’s authority. Air Armaments. The first step in this direction means the abolition of national air forces, and | the establishment of an international |

lUIlv I . force of interceptor and scout aeroplanes under League orders, the internationalisation of civil aviation which last is also part o , f Labour ’s programme for organising world transport. It is not necessary to follow the statement in its homily on how peace is to be preserved, for it is clear that the only circumstances in which it is conceivable that this country would go to war are precisely those in which, according to the statement, war would be justified as resistance to outrageous aggression. Further, the possibility of the British Government entering a war in direct opposition to the will of the people, or even in circumstances in which an overwhelming majority of the people were not behind it, is so remote as to make its discussion a purely academic one. What is of more immediate interest is that Labour now frankly recognises that an automatic general strike as an instrument to break war is an unreliable one, particularly as aggressive action, if it comes at all, is much more likely to have its origin in those countries such as Germany or Japan where an independent trade union movement has either ceased to exist or is much too weak to have a restraining influence on the Government. The value of the statement of Labour’s attitude is therefore limited to the effect it has in influencing the public at home to resist developments that might lead to war. It is to that exent a welcome addition to the large body of opinion which demands the maintenance by Britain of a strong constructive P®aee_ policy.