THE REICHSTAG'S CENSURE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14842, 6 December 1913, Page 10

THE REICHSTAG'S CENSURE.

The vote of censuro passed on the German Government in the Reichstag is one of the most significant events in Germany of recent years. The German system of Ministerial Government is such that the vote may not lead to any Ministerial changes, Ministers being appointed arid dismissed by the Emperor. The importance of the vote lies in the fact that it represents the rising tide of democracy moving against a military system that is not democratic. One has to take into consideration, of coarse, the fact that Zaborn is in Alsace-Lorraine, and that the manifestations of hostility to the Army are largely the result of anti-German feeling. Bat since Zabera is in AlsaceLorraine it was incumbent on tho military authorities to be particularly tactfid in their relations with the civil population, and this they have not been. The trouble seems to have originated with some exceedingly wrong and foolish instructions, no doubt not meant to be taken seriously, given by Lieutenant yon Foerstner to his men. Those caused very strong feeling among Alsatians, and as the lieutenant was marching along the street with his men, some taunt was addressed to him by a boy. The boy Was arrested and taken to the barracks, a crowd collected, soldiers appeared under arms, and moro civilians were arrested and detained. The mistake of the military authorities appears to have lain in arresting those people themselves, instead of calling on the police to do so: they usurped, in fact, the civil power. • Subsequently the lieutenant was insulted in public, and cut down one of the alleged offenders who sought to escape. It is worth while noticing the difference between the arrest of people by military forces for insulting German officers, and the arrest of men in New Zealand by civil forces for riotous and disorderly conduct. In New Zealand it is the arm of the civil law duly authorised that the nation relies upon. The incident also illustrates tho vast differenco between our democratic system and the system of militarism in Germany. The German Army is not democratic. It was created by autocracy, and it remains to some extent above civil and moral law. Its officers form a caste which holds itself rigidly aloof from tho rest of tho community. In Great Britain and tho colonies the principle of civilian control of military matters is firmly established, but this is not tho case in Germany, where the Emperor exorcises very real authority in tho Army, and the Minister for "War is a. soldier. Even in England, where officers for the most part are drawn from a comparatively limited class, there is nothing like tho German military caste, while in New Zealand the defence system is as democratic as such a system can be. It is—and this is a fact of supreme importance —the creation of democracy, and is controlled by democracy. The German Army will not iuiffitw hy what has happened in Zabern.

Tho conviction, in which the Social Democrats share, that there must be an army, and that the obligation to serve lies on everybody, will not be shaken. But militarism in its arrogn-on of the civil power must saSer by sUch ""*" dents, and such a vote of censure as the has just passed. Germany's s trouble is that her military system is * the exact opposite of our own. *

Nothing in politics used to amuse the public very much more, during Sir J. G Ward's term of office, than his singular habit of selecting some Reform newspaper, declaring in very angry tones that he never paid any attention to it, end then proceeding to spend hours in denouncing it. This must be a weakness peculiar to "Liberalism," for its local organ, which has declared that Mr Miller is "impossible," and quite cerum to be hopelessly defeated, is unable to get him ol its mind. He is the subject of two or three editorials every day. This is hardly fair to the simpleminded folk who still believe in "Liberalism." It is not fair to leave them wondering why, if Mr Miller is so "impossible" as hardly to be worth worrying about, it is necessary to assail him in column after column.

The latest attack upon Mr Miller, however, is not without its humorous side. Tho "Liberals" are solemnly warned that Mr Miller, if not a Red Fed., will become one > when he enters Parliament. No doubt this is only our contemporary's little joko, but it is not a happy joko, because in the same sentence we are told that Mr Laurenson, on the other hand, "would command respect in Parliament by his ability, his knowledge, and his earnestness." If this is not also a joke, it will run the risk of appearing so in such a context.

An illuminating interjection in a political address is reported from New South Walet. The Leader of the Opposition was referring to the prospect of the farmer'b toil being wasted , through unreasonable demands, when a voice interrupted with this emphatic comment: "And good enough, too." Here you have expressed in four words tho almost incredibly foolish attitude of many Labour extremists towards the man on the land. As the "Sydney Morning Herald" cays: "It is precisely the truth wrapped up in the present strike in New Zealand. Yonder the farmers have been obliged to represent the State against a section of revolutionaries." It does not appear to strike these people—or perhaps it does strike them and they ignore the fact for their own purposes—that most wealth comes from the bind, and that consequently interference with production and distribution diminishes wealth, and so makes the community, including the working man, poorer.

In the course of the proceedings at tho Magistrate** Court in connexion with an indecent and infamous slander printed in the "Strike Bulletin," Mr Bishop, S.M., hoped that the respectablo portion of Labour would take an opportunity of disavowing any responsibility for "such an abominable and vile paragraph." Tho strike leaders said this would be dono, and expressed their disapproval of the paragraph. Another issue of the "Bullotin" has appeared, published by the authority of the Strike Commmitteo, and there Is not a word of regret for the paragraph and no sign of any disavowal of it. On the contrary, the paragraph is defended, and all the decent-minded people of the community are attacked. Wo ought not to be surprised, of course, that the strike • leaders' carry on the tradition of bad faith.

There can be no more doubt, of course, as to the responsibility of these men. 'If they had really wished to cleanse themselves of tho stain of connexion with the abominable stuff in the "Bulletin" they would have taken care to make this clear in the issue just out. Mr McCombs, by the way, told a Sumncr audience last night that he was not responsible, and that the application for prosecution was .aimed only' at him. He altogether overestimates his importance. It was public propriety and not Mr McOombs, that was in the mind of the authorities. Ho would have spoken more to the point had he told his audience why, if he is a member of the Strike .Committee, he has not withheld his authority from nn aggravation of the initial offence, instead of pretending that he is not a Red Fed. That he should make this foolish pretence is, by tho way, a rather significant fact. Red- Fed. stock is evidently orj, the slump.

"The fact is," said Mr "W. M. Hughes, the other day, in an election speech, "that until the advent of the Labour Party there never had -een anything but class legislation." The ox-Attorney-General for the Commonwealth is far too clover not to know that this is sheer bunkum. There was democratic legislation in Great Britain and tho colonies before tho Labour Party was heard of. The extension of tho franchise, compulsory education, factory laws—these and other questions affecting tie well-being of the "masses," were eubjects of legislation beforo Mr Hughes ever dreamed of being a Labour leader. Laws were passed in these and other subjects, of similar bonefit, by the British Parliament when it consisted almost entirely of wealthy members drawn from the aristocracy and tho Easiness world. ±i is really extraordinary that sensible men should be deceived by the fallacy that a man's politics must depend on his pocket or his social statue, for this is really the fallacy that underlies all the talk about class legislation, and tho Labour Party being the only preventive of it. Only a little reading and thought is required to show people its absurdity. One of cue noolest social reformers of the nineteenth century was Lord Shaftesbury, and much other ameliorative campaigning has been conducted and legislation passed by rich men and members of the aristocracy. We have on the one hand the Countess of Warwick supporting Larkin, and on tho other many working men in England voting for Conservative candidates. In the colonies there are on tho same sides in politics rich men and poor men, men "of the people" and men born of good social position. All of which Mr Hughes knows perfectly well, but at election time it is the custom to make appeals to the ignorance and class projudice of hie Party's 6upporters.