The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, October 4th, 1913. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1154, 4 October 1913, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, October 4th, 1913. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Commenting on the refusal of the Minister for Railways to make a reduction in children’s fares, our Palmerston evening contemporary says:—“The Minister for Rail ways has acted neither in the best interests of his Department nor of the travelling public in refusing to consider the question. It has been pointed out before that many mothers desire to take their children to the seaside during the summer mouths or on holidays to other parts of the Dominion, but the expense entailed is such tbit they are often debarred from what is not only a pleasure but often a necessity of health. Mr Herries argues that the concession desired would, if given, affect his revenues. But this argument is open to doubt. He would probably find that the increased number ol parents travelling would be sufficient to make up for the loss on children’s tickets, and thus the boou would be granted without affecting the revenue. In reply to arguments that the profit extracted last year was sufficiently large to allow the slight reductions to be made, the Minister declared that the year had been an exceptional one because two Easters had fallen in the one period, and be did not anticipate so good a return this year. It has to be remembered, however, that the new general manager of railways has now arrived and his control is expected to make many economies. Why could not these be countered by the small concessions asked for on behalf of the children ?

Pkopi,E who have read the Indus trial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill, and the comments of Social Democrats. Red Federatioaists, and other hostile critics, may be inclined to suspect that two Bills are in circulation, says the Wellington Post. Our contemporary continues : —The Reds appear to have a Bill of their own, for the wild allegations which they are roaring up and down the land have no foundation'in the Premier's Bill. The “Red Bill”—a deliberate distortion of the actual Bill—was the basis of much maudlin, stupid declamation at a meeting convened by the Social Democrats. After various tempestuous orators had knocked over, to their own satisfaction, the “Aunt Sallies” which their own bands bad made and set up, a pompous, typical Red Federation resolution was adopted, thus: — “That this meeting of Wellington citizens unreservedly condemns the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill now before Parliament as the deliberate effort of the Government to ruin bona fide unionism; that it demands its immediate withdrawal or rejection, and calls on all organised workers of New Zealand to fight the measure at every stage.” No mincing of words here! No politeness to poor Parliament, so thunderously warned! Gentlemen of the House of Representatives and honourable gentlemen of the Legislative Council, listen to the master’s voice—“demands,” and, therefore, be it enacted as the Reds may be pleased to dictate. No doubt, if the Reds supply a copy of their “Bill” the Government will be glad to reject it, because their “Bill” is a burlesque on the real Bill. Proof that the Government Bill is materially different from the one which the Ultra-Socialists have misrepresented to themselves is given in the Post’s news columns. The public may not be surprised to have reckless, careless eloquence from Messrs Semple, Holland, and others of Mr Tregear’s colleagues in the Socialist brotherhood, but the people are entitled to fair speech from Mr Tregear himself, who was once Secretary for Labour, and a solid supporter of the Arbitration system. His companions now mostly prefer to have their trust in an organisation large enough lor a general strike, Mr Tregear spoke about the possibility of having members of a union fined up to ,£II,OOO or more, in the mass, for an unlawful strike. This cannot be deduced from the Government’s Bill, which limits the fine to a maximum of £lO for an individual striker and £x,ooo for a union, but if action is taken against the strikers collectively, as a union, they are not prosecuted individually. Thus Mr Tregear’s statement is contrary to the text of the real Bill. Also much tearful talk was lavished on the penalties specified for the aiding and abetting of unlawful strikes. An attempt was made to harrow the people’s hearts with dreadful phantasms of men fined .£SOO for giving is to a striker’s starving family. This is the sheerest “soap-box” clap-trap and blatant humbug. Surely the Reds must have a desperate case when they resort to such ridiculous melodramatic shifts. The “Revolutionaries” are trying to arrange a combine with the

“Evolulionaries” against the Bill, but the Labour Party, with memories of recent outgenerallings by the Socialists, should be on guard. Labour should not work on the Reds’ “Bib.” Labour should carefully read anungarbled copy ot the official Bill, and act on fact—not fiction and twisting of text. The Post certainly does not claim perfection for the Bill, but says emphatically that it does not deserve the absurd charges of hasty commentators. The expostulation as to “slavery worse than the slavery of antiquity” and “industrial tyranny” is due to disordered imaginations.