Under Currents

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17492, 28 August 1928, Page 6

Under Currents

Sv ' Ste\sr.

IN THE DRIFT C? LIFE

WAR TO END WAR. "Well what do you think of It, auntie?" asked Mr Piper. "It" was the pact for outlawry of war. "Whv I don't see what else they could do," said Aunt Selma, "after telling all those boys to go and get killed because H was a war to end war. I read sc-mew-nere that Mr Lloya Gcorce said it 117 times—that it was a war to end war. But I don't know that I like the word outlaw. iou alwavs think of people being outlawed -—not war and such horrid things. And whenever I think of a poor outlaw; I want to help him. If Mr Lloyd George himself was outlawed, I'd begin to feel sorry for him, though he was so beastlv with his "knock-out blow and his "squeeze them till the pips squeak and his "make the Germans pay and his "economic pressure" —/w/V Oll meant starving little German babies. \nd if thev outlawed all the parsons who cried for war in the name of goodness, I'd begin to feel sorry for them. As for outlawing a whole nation that didn't do as it was told, like Chum, why- But there! They reaHy want peace. And now, 1/ hope we won't have mothers saying they wished they had ten sons to give and I hope we won't hear any more about war beta- glorious and virile and enboys will And something eTse to g do that is just as adventurous and riskv and splendid and heroic instead of blowing people to pieces. * * •'.■',!* A CURIOUS PETITION. It is pleasing to And a petitioner of high standing going before Parliament ami urging that the parly system is a folly- This w as not the whole purnose of the "Fifth Petition" presented by Mr F G. Dalziell, the Wellington banking solicitor, this session but it puts in concrete form a principle which he wishes Parliament to recognise. In his evidence before the petitions committee Mr Dalziell said: "You are going to the country shortly for a general election, You are divided into three parties. Each party has its political platform. It proposes to tell the people of this country that only along the lines of that platform can the welfare of the country be secured . . . How can Parliament he usefully divided into three parties, each maintaining that-the other Is going in the wrong direction? Is it not your duty to tell the people you only know of the one way?" What is this way, which Mr Dalziell declares is the only way of achieving any real good whether in national life, in industry or in any other sphere? It is simply the Gospel message in a new form.

Before venturing into the deep waters of ultimate principles, let us see what Mr Dalziell has to say about industrial unity—the subject of his Fifth Petition. He declares that the need of the moment is not for an election "with its confusing advocacy of rival platforms," but an effort on the part of members of Parliament to bring Capital and Labour into a national combination. It is Capital rather than Labour that stands in the way of such combination, he says: "In New Zealand, as in the Ola Country, Labour is proclaiming that it is prepared to join in a movement for Ihe co-ordination of industry in a national programme on a basis which accords with the above constitution (the only way); but those in control of industry know that the great majorilv of the owners of capital are reluctant to do this. . . . This reluctance on the part of Capital to combine for the national efficiency of industry is the real justification for the outcry against 'Capitalism,' for it is the underlying cause of the conflict between employer and employee, since it renders both capiUl and employment insecure and compels capital to charge a high rate of interest to meet the risks in which it is involved." Mr Dalziell points out that in control boards and the employee partnership plan New Zealand already has machinery for the combination of Labour and Capital, but, he says, "the control board legislation needs to be amended so as to safeguard the interests of all sections of industry and not merely the producers' interests." * * * * When we come to Mr Dalziell'3 slaLement of general principles, the "Seeker" finds nothing enlightening. To lay down the law of unity—"individuals combining their forces" —and to say, "Look where you will, in nature you will find no other kind of living oi activity than this" seems to be a denial of plain facts. Is there no strife? Is there no "Nature red in tooth and claw?" Is there no war? Then we come to this "law" —that "every member of a combination shall make' himself agreeable to the other members." But when things are going wrong, is not ttie member who makes himself or herself disagreeable often the greatest helper? Is not Mr Dalziell himself a benefactor in making himself disagreeable to many of our partisan politicians and to the more conservative among our captains of industry?

A friend has asked me what I make of Mr Dalziell's rule of life. It seems to be that he states prosily the poet Tagore's truth, "There is more power of life in one little flower of beauty than in all your Maxim guns." Power "of life," you will note. The mere fumes from a Maxim gun, without the bullets, could kill the flower; the bullets can end the lives of thousands and tens of thousands of humans. But those terrific guns have no power of life. In our living, in politics, in industry, in social life, in pleasure-seek-ing, we are often so absorbed in strife and in firing our Maxim guns that we trample under foot all the flowers with their "power of life." And as we become absorbed in our strife, we imagine a virtue in it. We fire guns of "righteous indignation" at our neighbours, at the oppos'ng party in politics or in industrial strife. Even in church life the same waste is seen. (My friend, who is an Anglican, suggested that Mr Dalziell's rule of life was specially pertinent to present troubles in his church.) We call our hate "righteousness"; our partisanship "loyalty." There are times when we cannot but disagree. But if we keep in mind where the power of life lies, we shall be more concerned with cultivating little, helpless flowers of beauty than with inventing and /lring new Maxim guns. »•»-■••'.:.■■• MADHOUSE. "Read again, with eyes wide open, the modern -history of diplomatic and international relations and you will think that you arc reading the legends of a madhouse." ~.' 'i —Dr. Hugh Dalton, M.P., in "Towards the Peace of Nations."