Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News TUESDAY, APRIL, 6,1909 THE SOCIALISTS AND WAR.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 4395, 6 April 1909, Page 2

Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News

TUESDAY, APRIL, 6,1909 THE SOCIALISTS AND WAR.

Ihis above all—to thine own self be true , And it must follow as the night the dag Thou const not then be false to any wan Shakespeare.

The interruptions to which the speakers at the National Defence League Meeting were subjected last week in Auckland, when Mr Parr’s motion “ that in the opinion of this meeting the time has arrived for the institution of some form of universal defensive training, as absolutely necessary for the safety of the Dominion,” was made the excuse for the socialists to put before the meeting Gtn amendment of their own, is one raoro instance of how inconsequently the Socialists view some matters. It may be remarked in passing, that this plan of interrupting, and extensively interfering with the conduct of public meetings is a part of the Socialistic plan of campaign, as evidenced by their practice of attending such meetings in the United Kingdom and working up a well-concerted scheme oi interruption. Mr Parr, with commendable British fairness requested the Chairman to allow the Socialists’ amendment to be put to the meeting. It was put, and at once ruled out of order, because it referred to the relations of the British people with the people of Germany, whereas Mr Parr’s motion had reference to universal military training simply. And Mr Parr’s motion was carried by a very enthusiastic and overwhelm ning majority. We quote the amendment, for the sake of the truths it voices, as well as for the sake of the no less important trutife it overlooks : —“ That this of citizens and electors of Auckland (1) affirms the conviction that the greatest interests of the people of Great Britain and Germany are bound up with each other, and ought therefore not to be regarded as conflicting with each other, and that consequently any threatened or pos sible war between them will prove disastrous to the well-being, stability, progress, and honour of either nation, irrespective of the issue of such possible hostilities ; (2) that every possible effort to submit any international differences and difficulties between the two nations to arbitration be made before regarding the outbreak of hostilities as inevitable ; (3) that after all efforts in favour of arbitration have failed, the forces of international trade unionism and socialism be supported in their proposed action to prevent the outbreak of hbstilities by means of a series of Anglo-German 'inferences, international strikes, commercial boycotts, and other such steps as may tend to successfully secure the end in view.”—Mr Entrican rose to a point of order, The motion had no reference to Germany, but related to universal military training.—The Chairman : I rule this gentleman out of order (Mixed Cheers) —Voices : Chuck him off.—An elderly man (a Mr Oliver Mason) sprang to the platform, and overshadowing his younger socialistic ally dared anyone to “ chuck him off.” He pantingly seconded the amendment. We are wholly in agreement with that part of the amendment which declare the interests of the people of Great Britain and Germany to be bound up together. We would go further aDd say that the interests of the people of Great Britain and of every race on God’s earth are bound up together. We are in full agreement with the suggestion that every honourable method should be tried before war is resorted to. For war is hideous, only less hideous than dishonourable peace. But, '

when all this is frankly confessed there remains the unescapab’e element of a great people’s respou-1 sibilitv toward those territories over which it has come to rule, and we cannot admit that “any threatened or possible war between them. (Britain and Germany) will prove! disastrous to the honour of either nation, irrespective- of the iss le of such hostilities.” Supposing that Germany should conceive a notion that she could administer New Zealand better than we can do it ourselves. Would it be disastrous to the honour of Great Britain to forbid the experiment with the voice of the cannon ? Supposing Germany were to wish to try the experiment in South Africa ? Quite apart from British interests' there, how about the natives ? Germany’s rule over native races, where she his been able to establish it, has not been unmarked by the gravest atrocities. It behoves Britain to protect the lower races against powers leis benign than herself, that is her simple duty to them. To the people of Germany we can have no reasonable objection as neighbours, or fellow countrymen. But to German autocratic methods of dealing with inferior races we have every dislike, and we maintain that it is for the greater good of all such races as we have subdued that we ourselves should rule them. As to the Socialistic suggestion that when all efforts to settle international disputes by arbitration fail, the forces of international trade unionism and socialism be supported in their proposed action to prevent the outbreak of hostilities by means of a series of Anglo German Conferences, international strikes, commercial boycotts, and other such steps as may tend to secure the end in view, is that not introducing Civil War by way of checking international hostilities ? Would not that be precipitating that most terrible of all kinds of warfare, namely class - warfare. Think what would result, if on the eve of some great international conflict, the class war, which the more extreme socialists have so ardently fomented, were to announce itself in terms of defiance, in the form of strikes, and well planned revolt We have consistently declared in favour of the maintainance of peace by all honourable means, but we fail to recognise in the growing class assertiveness of the extreme socialists, with its revolutionary methods, a reasonable solution of those human

problems of which international war is only one, those problems which arise out of the

ineradicable, elemental passions of the race. The question which naturally presents itself to the re fleeting mind is this : “ Why should we British people, with our constitutional privileges, with our representative Government, our power to dictate our international policy through the ballot, why should we resort to the violence of strikes ? Such methods may suit more hysterical and unregulated national temperaments, but for ourselves we prefer constitutional methods of treating such momentous matters as international relations. If

the socialists can disclose the secret.

of how to end international war,

without introducing in its place civil pandemonium they will have earned the gratitude of all progressive peoples.