"LIONS LED BY GEESE."

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14832, 25 November 1913, Page 6

"LIONS LED BY GEESE."

Every step taken by the leaders of the revolutionary movement only tends to show their unfitness to lead anybody, and to land their dupes deeper in the miro. Somewhat late in the day, it has dawned on the Auckland revolutionaries that the more men thero are on strike, the greater the demand on the striko fund, and the less opportunity thero is of replenishing it. It is said that they have tried to call off tho general strike, except as regards the transport workers, but that a number of unionists having "downed tools" at the behest of the Federation, are disinclined to start work again at the bidding of the samo erratic and irresponsible body. Whether this is true or not, we are told "it is now admitted "that if such an agreement wero "arrived at, it would he good strategy "to allow all other unions to resume "work and contribute to keep a scc"tiona.l strike alive." This, of course, is an admission that the general strike —tho essential thing to which the Federation pinned its faith —is a failure. The Federation has been' beaten in Wellington and Auckland, and will soon have to throw up the sponge here. It is the knowledge of this fact that is causing the local leaders to make a last desperate plunge by calling out the Drivers' Union. The majority of the men 6Co the folly of this thing, and were it not for the incubus of terrorism hanging over them would refuse to come out. Tho only result will be to still further alienate public sympathy by exasperating numbers of innocent citizens who will be put to loss and inconvenience by this latest assumption of arbitrary power by brainless and irresponsible mischief-makers. It cannot alter, or even defer, tho inevitable end which is fast approaching.

Shortly after the flotation of the recent New Zealand £3,500,000 loan, it was reported that the underwriters wero going on ''strike," in order to allow of timo for the digestion of loan issues. It was pointed out, however, that the fluctuations of tho money-market and of the price pf money were so far beyond control that such a "strike" would not be feasible. The London "Daily Telegraph's" City Editor doubted, in any case, whether the underwriters were really being saddled with such heavy liabilities as appeared to be the case. The investing public, he says, has learned a good deal about the market, and very frequently investors are the re*"-! guarantors of the so-called underwriters. Insurance companies, for example, and other" big .corporations with money on their hands, "take advantage of the underwriting commission to securo the amounts they want at a cheaper rate." Again, the large stockbroking firms have usually, before underwriting, arranged with such clients as fancy the new issue to give them a pro rata participation in return for a brokerage which may represent one-eighth or one-quarter of the underwriters' fee. Thus the amourjt nominally "left on the underwriters' hands" may in no way indicate the real position.

The sorrows of the trade unionist who is oppressed by the fact that there aro others besides him in the world, and other rights than his, are as nothing to the sorrows of the poet. Mr Henry Newbolt (or Professor Newbolt, as we shall never feel pleased to call him) recently told the Royal Society of Literature what some of these sorrows are. The first is tho large public that likes its poetry to be sound common-sense. These people think the poet's highest function is to provide members of Parliament with tags for quotation. Then there is the man who only buys a poet's works after he is dead, convinced that no living poet can be really great enough for consideration while he is in the land of the living. Thero are others, too—too many others—who regard poets as persons whoso function is the furnishing of matter for school books and lectures on literature. Hardly less distressing is the "antiquarian," who does not understand the poet, but merely writes footnotes to his verses.

Of course it is not only the poet who suffers from the Philistinism of the day. The Philistine is everywhere. We quoted the other day a Canadian writer in the "Round Table" who said of a section of Canadian Nationalists that "they 6pare Utile thought for other dangers to the community than those arising from the house-fly or the bar." The late Rt. Hon. George Wyndham discovered that same attitude in some of the participants in the Education controversy in Britain in 1906. "I have a letter before mc"," he wrote, "from a man who holds that dogmatic teaching of the Christian or any other religion is immaterial. He would teach the religion of citizenship. This turns out to bo the teaching of boys not to spit in public places." These are the

peoplo who make tho poets die young and poor.

Dean Henson's reason Jor refusing to sign a protest against the forcible feeding of women comes as a refreshing breath of common-sense into a situation that is unhealthily charged with sentimontalism. It is unworthy of a good Christian, he says, to embarrass the Government in suppressing crime when he is confessedly unable to suggest any better course. If tho good people who are urging tho Government to stop forcible feeding would only clear their minds of sentimentalism they would see that Dean Henson takes up the only proper attitude. These misguided women are sent to gaol for breaking the law, and in gaol they refuse to eat. They must either be fed forcibly or allowed to starve. Humanitarian considerations and public opinion will not permit the Government to let them starve, so the only way to uphold the authority of the law is forcible feeding. As a matter of fact, the authorities gave up this method of compulsion for a time, but their action was interpreted as weakness, and they were obliged to revert to it. It is very deplorable that women should be treated in such a way, but tho indignity they suffer is nothing in importance to the harm that would bo done to the community if the law were flouted. Dean Henson's point that it is the duty of Christians to uphold the Government in suppressing crime should bo noted in certain quarters at the opposite side of the world.

"We suspect that the paragraph we published yesterday about tho purchaso by tho Republic of San Marino of a battery of Creusot guns has been heightened by the imagination of some English or Continental journalist. A State so small in area that it would not be able to give the guns full range, with a population of only 10,000, and a revenue of only £15,000, couid hardly afford to spend several thousands on a battery of artillery. Tho truth nrobably is that it has picked up guns second-hand. Even then the purchase would be noteworthy as an example of the acceptance by even the tiniest States of the obligation of self-defence. San Marino is a dot in Italy, and if Italy mad© up its mind to deprive the Republic of its ancient liberties it might be able to do so by the despatch of ono regiment, or at most a brigade: No other State would fire a shot to save San Marino from absorption. Yet the people of San Marino maintain a small army and purchase guns. Pride in their history probably has much to do with this, for tho State claims to be the oldest in Europe. But whatever is tho motive, the fact that this tiny State spends money on a force which would not be of the slightest use in timo of war, is worthy of notice. The instinct of self-defence is harder to eradicate than some people think.