The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1920. AN ENEMY IN THE CAMP.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3485, 13 May 1920, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE.

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1920. AN ENEMY IN THE CAMP.

With which is incorporated “The Taihape Post and Waimarino v News.”

The visit of the Prince of Wales to this Dominion has raised the question of whether it has not become advisable in the interests of peace, progress and contentment of the whole body politic to take stock of the honour, loyalty and allegiance to that system of government which is ‘overwhelmingly acceptable to every section of the people. Apparently, that I.W.W. excresence on labour still‘ remains, and it is undeniable that. excresences devoid of loyalty to the community in which they live and enjoy a larger measure of liberty and opportunity than could be found under any other form of government in any other part of the world, have made theirpresence obvious by a display of indifference amounting to disloyalty to the Crown, to the son of that human unit who is representative of the collective British Empire. A new page is opened in British history by the advent of a treasonable cult in the ranks of the masses of the people, for that history, though full of instances in which privileged classes have rev.o-lted in efforts to acquire still further prerogative, it is left to workers in these modern times to become the dupes of human cuckoos who have neither lovefi or respect for anything but their diseased intelligences; they spurn the King, the country, community, house, and even the very couch in which they were cradled. The iconoclast we can admire, but the destroyer who would with one fell stroke wreck the highest evolution of benign government, should be kept under as close surveillance as any other class :of lunatic. To say that such men foul their very nest and leave a trail of contamination wherever they go is an unduly mild reference to their pcstilential and dangerous proclivities. Have not those persons we refer to said that if they. were in Russia they would be Bolsheviks? And have they not by their attitude to the visit of the Heir Apparent. to the Throne of Britain disclosed that they are Bolsheviks whileenjoying all the advantages of a British subject? Does not such vile M boast of the tenets of Bolshevism in, the presence of he whom ninety-nine} per cent of people are over-per-plexd{ in evolving adequate means of demon- I strating their deep-seated loyalty and allegiance to a governing system in” which they were born on a plane of equality that is not enjoyed elsewhere, constitute an insult to the p:opular conscience? It cannot be justly said that this journal has ever strayed from the direct line of advocacy for popular justice, for greater and still greater measure of equality before and under the laws made by those who the people elect as their law-makers, but we realise that an insult to the public conscience by al display of vulgar rudeness towards the Head -of the Empire is no part of‘ Lwbour’s political programme, and is as repulsive to the great body of} workers as it should be to any man or woman having a grain of patriotism in their constitution. Readers of human character who have been fortunate in‘ securing a close view of the Prince of Wales are "compelled to admit. thofigh it be against their preconceived notions, that lie is prirnar- ' HY, and entirely, a. man; that he Thasf the natural advantage of being bless-

ed with no inconsidex-able "degree of

genius; that he is positively illCzlpable of the vulgar caddishness displayed by the few I.W.W. who are pleased to flauutatheir disioyalty by resolutions which are 3. stain on the Dominiongs honour sheet. What would be the attitude- of :such men to a. visit from the Bolshevik kings, Lenin and Trotsky, or even from Bela. Kun, or one of the Hun Bolsheviks? No answer is

‘needed: they vaunt their ‘disloyaltff t 0 the Government under which Hlo3’ enjoy the fullest measure 0f "°—l'e°dom» leaving ‘themselves to apPlalld the very murdorérs of kings, of their families; murderers and assassinators of all leaders. that an orgy of robbery and confiscation‘ may ‘be vvallowed in. Is it necessary in -the ‘interests of the working and business classes that a revolution should be precipitated against all law and order, while workers undeniably have the E Voting POWBI‘ to elect whatever Government favours sweeping away such usurped privilege that results in slaves at one end of the social fabric and millionaires at the other‘? The men who would be Bolsheviks if they were in Russia, pass resdlhtions against wel,coming a visit from the Prince of ‘ Wales, also pass resolutions against {the death sentence to murderers, because, -they urge, oblivion is not improvement, claiming that all punish~ ment should be inflicted with a View to improving the criminal, and yet the ‘men and the cult they publicly aplplaud by speech and pen, are the murderers of millions, including kings, queens, princesses, princes, heads of Government, right down -through the whole social gamut, what for? That they may reign as kings, [princes and governors in place of the victims -of their hellish cult. Supporticrs of Russian Bolshevism in this DoVninion by insidious craft and cunning are endeavouring to wall in from ob,servation the Bolshevik past, and to l paint the Lenin and Trotsky regime in ;da.inty, spotless, chaste col-ours. They fdo not dwell on the super-brutal murdcr of the innocent royal family of Russia, not because their conscience‘ revolts at the most diabolical of, crimes, but because it would damnj their prestige and influence V amongst,» the overwhelming preponderance of,‘ workers who are loyal '=_f'o the country.‘ and race from whence they came. Is not loyalty to right and justice the most admirable trait in human charac-J tor? Is not a proved loyal workman the pride of an employer?‘ What -is] ‘the I'etl‘ibution of any person who is ‘proved disloyal, whether it be in the! family, in the club, in any organisa-1 tion? How does any body of workers | regard the man they find devoid ofl loyalty to their unions and other or-I ganisations? It is needless to ask, but how immeasurably more contcmptible is it to be disloyal to one’s king and counn-y‘? Let us say that devotees of the Bolshevik cult have proved beyond any possible ’doubt that they are disloyal« to everything -on earth but self. They murder and pillage, ruth-le.-‘sly destroy life and concreted labour, using any tool to gain their" satanically selfish ends.‘ Negation. of their veriestfw_hims by one of their own caste merits and involves obliv-‘ ion,, nothing czifi be allowed to stanrll in their way; and yet of such are‘ those who would flaunt their puny in-I sults in the presence of the son of the first man in the British lihnpire, amidst loyal demonstrations of a magnitude, character, and depth of feeling that has nc'v‘e'r'becn surpassed by any] proportionate people. It is yet unthinkable that any Government. is pos- B sible in which there is not a representative head, therefore are there! not hugely prepondcrating, undeniably‘ good reasons why the British Empire should prefer a King George to an American ‘Woodrow Wilson. or even a Russian Lenin or 'l‘rofsky‘? In loyalty to King and country lies our power to pl'o;jre.<:s as an Empire znnongst Eur pires. l