THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1919. STRIKES AND MILITARY INTERVENTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17686, 25 July 1919, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1919. STRIKES AND MILITARY INTERVENTION.

It is reported in our cable messages this morning that the Triple Labour Alliance in Great Britain has carried by a large majority a proposal to hold a strike ballot in the event of the Government lief using to concede the demand far tho nationalisation of the coal mines and for the non-interference of the military in disputes. The sensitiveness of Labour respecting its monopoly of the use of coercion has always been very apparent. The action taken by the Home Government for the preservation of some of the Yorkshire collieries from irretrievable damage, which would recoil upon the miners themselves, seems to be regarded by the unionists', with suspicion. The Government has already explained that it has no intention of using service men as strike-breakers. Earlier cablegrams indicated the existence of some' anxiety as to how the miners would take the employment of men from the navy to pump out the mines, despite the obvious need for the adoption of measures of such a kind. Apprehension on this score has evidently influenced some of the mine managers who have been endeavouring to carry out pumping and ventilating operations by volunteers and amateur labour. The raising by the miners of the question of militaiy interference recalls a discussion which took place a few weeks ago in the House of Commons. The subject originated in the publication by a Labour newspaper of a confidential army circular, of a copy of which it had by some means become possessed. This circular had been sent out to commanding officers asking for reports concerning the attitude which their men might be expected to adopt during strikes. The questions upon which information was sought were whether the troops would respond to orders for assisting to preserve the peace, whether they would assist in strike-breaking, whether they would parade for draft overseas, particularly to Russia, whether there was any growth of trade unionism among them, and what effect outside trade unions had upon them. The publication of such a document, unexplained and shorn of its context, naturally excited some stir in Labour circles, and an endeavour was made to misrepresent it as indicating a military anti-trade-unionist plot. Labour members of Parliament did their best to creato capital out of the circular. The Minister for War was asked whether he thought the men who formed the British army today would be likely to act as strikebreakers or shoot down fellow trade unionists and he was told that the British Empire could not be run on " a policy of the spurious ambition of a military dictator." Mr Churchill's reply was fortunately calculated to remove misunderstanding in the minds of all reasonable persons. The circultrr, ho explained, was issued at the beginning of tho year. At that time there were mutinies in the army, and strikes and strike threats outside, involving services such as those of transport and electricity, the combined stoppage of which apart from the effects it might have j upon the employers concerned, would entail tho starvation of tho public- and threaten the dissolution of society. Tho Government had stated clearly in Parliament at the time that, without in anv way desiring to take sides between employers and employed, it would feel it to be its duty to do what it could to safeguard the people against starvation to maintain such indispensable services as light and water, and to guarantee public order and the prevention of violonoo to life and limb, and for this pnrposo it was necessary to ascertain tho attitude of the army. TLo Ministor for War admitted that in tho circular, in the drafting of which no politician had obviously any hand, there were expressions that 'wore apt to causo misundorstaiidinp;. and resentment among workmen. Tho expression " strikebreaking,', far iwrteaee, vnxa bound, he

said, to c&uso offenco. Moreover, it did not convey what the military authorities meant. "Strike-breaking," lie added, "meant the uso of soldiers and sailors to take tho place of tho workI men who wero carrying on an industrial dispute with their omployers. Tho Government had never had tho intention of using troops to replace workers in an industrial dispute, and so to take tho side of tho employers. That would ho a mischievous invasion of the liberty of tho subject and contrary to the law of tho land and to tho whole custom find practice of the country. But tho situation whjch had confronted tho country was ono in which large concentrations of people in the cities were forced into the prospect of being deprived of the necessities on which life and health depended. If any of these necessities were cut off the Government must come to the rescue of t people." Such a statement denned very clearly the attitude of the Government in relation to tho use of the military, should occasion demand it, in counteracting the effects of strikes. It is a fair and reasonable view that where a strike does not involve an attack upon constituted authority the use of the military in combatting it is not justified. The Government will no doubt stand at the present time by its declaration in respect to strike-break-ing. But it is also called upon to stand by its declaration in respect to' the protection of the public. It is said 1 that divisions of troops have been sent to the strike area. This will be a precautionary measure. When a great strike is in progress there is no telling where the disturbances too often created under such circumstances may end. Should serious rioting take , place, beyond the power of the police to overcome, then it becomes necessary that the military should intervene to secure the maintenance of order.' The Government has a duty in this matter which it cannot neglect. And the reasonableness of the miners 19 not shown in their wilful misinterpretation of and resentment at the action of the Government in sending men from the navy to check the destruction which, with most serious consequences to the minora themselves, and to the country at large, must ensue at the collieries unless flooding is prevented. Fortunately, the miners themselves seem to be realising that the withdrawal of the engineers and pumpmen from the mines was a grave and mischievous blunder.