The Dominion. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1910. LABOUR LED ASTRAY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 36, 6 November 1919, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1910. LABOUR LED ASTRAY

The report of tho lloyal Commission set up to inquire into the circumstances ol the recent railway "cut" disposes finally of the charge trumped up by Mr. Semple, M.l'., that services were reduced while the .Railways Department still had ample stocks of coal in hand. On point the Commission is as explicit as possible. There was no other reason for tho curtailment of the train services, it states, but the shortage of coal. The only fault found with the Department is that in some cases it passed by opportunities of importing coal because it considered- that the freight charges demanded were too high. As tho Commission points out, the shortage of coal which compelled the Department to cut down services was due to a number of causes. Of those causes that which chiefly deserves attention is a reduction in output from the local mines. It is m this question of the reduction of the local coal output that the interest of the report really centres, and for the reason, of course, that the miners of the Dominion are at present deliberately restricting output in tho hope, apparently, of enforcing an even more serious railway "cut" than that of July. It is time that the people of this country'gave serious heed to the antisocial tactics of the miners and of some other sections of organised Labour, and considered jusl; what such tactics involve. The "go-slow" policy can be regarded as nothing else than a particularly vicious and unprincipled attack upon the community. At the will of the coal miners the public is threatened with a railway "cut" worse than the last, with the incidental accompaniment of widespread unemployment, and with the interruption of essential municipal services. The action of the miners* has been seconded ably, though in sporadic efforts, by the waterside workers. Serious loss and inconvenience were occasioned here in Wellington last week when coal cargoes were held up for (several days, and the whole Dominion is at present suffering from a shortage of sugar duo to the refusal of tho Auckland waterside™ some weeks ago to unload: a cargo of five thousand tons of that commodity,- which as a result was diverted to' Australia There is a touch of humour in the fact that thp Runanga miners, who are restricting the output of coal, are complaining bitterly about a dearth of sugar. No doubt the Auckland wijtersiders who lately turned away a shipload of sugar are in one way and another feeling the pinch of coal scarcity. But, as the Prime Minister observed in Parliament yesterday, it is a poor consolation to know that those who practise "go-slow" tact-ins are cutting their own throats when at the same time they-are breaking down other industries and injuring the whole community. The issue raised is perfectly plain. A great and rapid increase in production represents the only means by which the Dominion can hope to meet its war obligations and maintain its prosperity, miich less afford its people improved standards of living. It is, of course, hopeless to think of nroprress on these lines while the "troslow" policy enjoys its present vogue, particularly in a vital industry like coal mining. High wages, improved conditions, even the rapidlv increasing srale of nublie expenditure of which the Supplementary Estimates convey a pointed reminder, can all be provided for if the necessary increase in production is secured. But with this condition unsatisfied and "froslow" tactics' imperilling a united working- effort, it is more foolishness to talk'about maintaining pros-w-rrtv and meeting such calls as the Dominion has to face. The elementary fact to be grasped is that every demand made upon national resources, whether by the workers or to meet war obligations, is a demand on wealth, and that the only way to meet it- is to produce the wealth.

A discussion which took place in the House of in the oarly hours of yesterday morning may assist to set the facts of the case in true perspective. It was of .interest chiefly as showing how far those who speak for militant Labour are from bein.u guided by any sound or worthy policy in the 'course they pursue. Only the, leader of the Labour-Socialist faction had the effrontery to declare that ht stood 'with the miners in their "go-alow" policy; his colleagues disclaimed responsibility. It is noteworthy, howover, that not one member of the group said a word in condemnation of this outrageous attack unon the community or in advocacy of a genuine policy of industrial progress It is their whole record that where they have not actively fomented industrial strife and class-hatred they have done nothing to promote the better understanding and conditions b.y which all would benefit, and none more conspicuously than wage-earn-ers. The truth is that the men who orofess to speak for militant Labour in this country arc hopelessly out of touch with what is most enlightened in the Labour .movement throughout the world. The policy of restricting output which they favour, tacitly or expressly,, as "a form of the strike weapon," has been carried to greater lengths in Britain than in this country. It has long been repudiated by 'the main body of organised Labour in the I'nited States and the result is seen in the present condition and prospects of these countries as regards industries and commerce. In thn t'nited Slates, as in Great Britain, Labour is fighting for better conditions, but while British Labour stands largely for restriction of output, American Labour upholds pay-

ment by results and ever-increasing efficiency in production. Tho result is summed up by a recent writer in tbo Fortnightly Review. "In coal mining, as in the manufacturing industries, one American produces as much as three Englishmen. Nominally, the United States have twice as much man-power as Great, Britain. However, if we allow for industrial eflifiiency, the effective manpower of the United States is six times as great as that of the United Kingdom, and the proportion in favour of the United States is constantly growing." The production ot coal strikingly illustrates the results attained in the two countries under divergent methods. Curing the last thirty years the annual output of coal per miner in Britain lias fallen from 1)12 tons to 226: simultaneously it has increased in the United States from 400 to 770 tons. Some, allowances are perhaps to be made which would modify this contrast, but it is pointed ' out that "the progressive increase of output per man in the United States compares with an enually progressive decline in the United Kingdom not only in coal, but in other industries as Veil." Such facts' as these afford a plain standard bv"which to measure the policy of militant Labour and its leaders in this country. The policy is one of destruction and leads to ultimate min for all concerned. On the other hand the policy of progress which is in favour with organised Labour in the. Unit, ed States makes it possible for tho workers not only to demand but to secure steadily improving conditions of work and wages as time goes on, and but for the foUv of a section of its workers there, is onen scope for the institution of a similar policy in this country.