“GO SLOW"

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10282, 17 May 1919, Page 6

“GO SLOW"

In the course of his thoughtful lecture on “The Increase of Production,” Mr Murphy sharply denounced the “go-slow” policy—which he regarded as by no means uncommon—as an economic fallacy. Wherein he is undoubtedly right. But if he regarded that as the main objection to ,“go slow,” he was as . undoubtedly wrong. The latter question arises out of his Statement that if circumstances arose similar to those which have produced this restrictive policy, ho might himself he tempted to use it. It cannot be concluded that he would give way to the temptation, because when he made that statement he had barred the use of the weapon as uneconomic, ns, therefore, a weapon bound to fail; in fact, a boomerang bound to come back to hurt the hand that launched it. If wo understand him aright, he only® meant to say that the treatment sometimes accorded to Labour was temptation to Labour to use any- weapon that comes handy, and that the temptation is not always resisted, even in the case of a dangerous boomerang like “go-slow.” That,, however, by no means exhausts the question of the “go-slow.” That policy is a fraud, on a par with_ goods at half the price without any intention of paying the difference. It is - an instance of the unprincipled rule that the end justifies the moans. It is a negation of principle, and, therefore, dangerous to the very fabric of society. For once the departure from principle is sanctioned the consequence becomes possible of n denial of all restraint of morality, without which all agreements are impossible. The logical end of “go slow” is the abandonment of all principle _ and the substitution of individual will, or the collective will of • class, as principle of government, which is plainly anarchy. “Go slow,” then, is not merely dangerous to the User; it is in the end a throat to the stability of the community. That labour has every right to assert its just dues and to insist upon them, no one can deny without injustice. No one, moreover, can truthfully say that Labour has no dues outstanding, or that these are often unreasonably refused. But the fact remains that the only way to get justice is by the path ot justice. The verdict of history is that when justice is impossible revolution is justified, and the corollary to that verdict is that when revolution leaves .the

path of justice it becomes anarchy. W a 1 have a striking, even horrifying, inj stance to-day in Russia. Here it is absurd-,10 say that justice lias become impossible for Labour. Labour is politically powerful enough to defend itself* without injustice, and has friends enough in the just men outside its ranks to help it to justice through the methods of the constitution which are its best' weapons. If Labour abandons principle by breaking agreements —and “go slow” is a fraudulent breach of agreement—it enters on a demoralisation dangerous to itself and likely to bo fatal to the community if unchecked. That “go slow” has been rifo at times it would be idle to deny. That Labour is apt to defend its honour when accused of “go slow” is shown by many instances, the - Inst one at the recent conference of watersiders, where some of the men indignantly denied approval of that policy*, and the Minister was careful to explain that he did not charge them with it. If this is a sign that Labour is determined to stand strongly ior principle always, thou an early and lasting industrial peace is possible. If it is hot, then nothing is possible.