THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1892 THE LABOR QUESTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2315, 6 February 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1892 THE LABOR QUESTION.

In Auckland last week the Local Employers Association held a meeting, and a report was read dealing with the relations of the employer and employed. It stated that the policy of the future would be to promote prosperity and peace, and went on to say that the collapse of each strike in this colony has had the effect of making men trust less to strikes and more to legislation, and in the future your executive think employers will have to contend with not open, but secret, combinations; not strikes, but legislative coercion.” So the employers are finding out now what we often told them at the time of the strike. For weeks during the recent strike the unionists clamoured for an amicable settlement of the dispute. They frequently expressed themselves desirous of meeting the employers with the view of settling (the questions involved in a conciliatory manner, but all such overtures were rejected with scorn. The Gove -nment of Sir Harry Atkinson attempted J? »»««»: »" d , in ! ited both parties to to a conference in Wellington, single employer with the except'!’ 11 01 the Hon. G. McLean attended. We told the employers then that they were making a great mistake, and it would appear that they are beginning to see it now. If they had approached the strikers in a conciliatory spirit then they could easily have settled the difference which existed, and a kindly and friendly feeling would have been created between employer and employed. Instead of this, the employers formed tradesunions of their own, and insisted on fighting the battle out to the bitter end. They did fight; they defeated the unions; but what is the result? A bitter feeling, which is not likely to be conciliated for years. The labor unions are not always reasonable, it is true, but the same thing must be said of employers, and never with greater truth than during the late strike. The late Thorold Kogers, undoubtedty the highest authority on the labour question the century has produced, refers with pride to the fact that European socialism finds no foothold in England, but issues a warning that if what he ealls the process of restoring to the people their rights is retarded by privileges and practices, “ which, if not relinquished or abandoned, will give occasion for an extension of that spirit of communism which finds its origin and apologies in the injuries which the many suffer at the hands of the few.” He argues that trades-unionism is the great safetv-valve, and that to extend it “ so as to embrace all labor should be the wish of everyone who desires to save his country from the spread of doctrines which are as pernicious to the interests ' of labor as they are destructive of all

progress., and ultimately of all hope.” Now that is exactly the doctrine we have preached from the beginning to the present time, Mr Thorold Rogers issued this warning to Englishmen some years ago, but they allowed it to pass unnoticed, and what is the consequence? Simply that England is now honeycombed with socialism, and that the strong arm of the law must be invoked to suppress it. It would appear, too, that it is not the real, honest, philosophic socialist who has found his way to England, but the desperate, murderous anarchist. The socalist does not aim at destroying anything; his idea is gradual development by legislative means. The anarchist aims at reducing society to his will by means of physical force with dynamite, guncotton, nitro-glycerine, and destructive explosives of a similar nature. According to the information to hand it is the anarchist who has found his way to England, and unless we make a great mistake England will find him a very undesirable resident. But the greed and avarice of the English money-maker is to blame. The English workman has resisted the continental anarchist for a long time ; he rejected to tenets of the International Society, and other kindred associations, who, as Thorold Rogers says, found England a barren field, for the propagation of their ideas. England has, however, been getting worse, and worse for the working man, and the struggle for existence has become more desperate, consequently he is driven perforce of circumstances to take the anarchist to his bosom. Many years ago Mr Thorold Rogers warned England of this danger, and we have frequently done the same as regards this colony. We have pointed out that the greatest danger lay in offering violent resistance to popular demands, but capitalists took altogether a different view of the matter, and thought if they could defeat the unions they would be allright. Now, apparently, they are waking up to the folly when they find that it is really difficult for any one who is not a laborer to enter Parliament. In Australia it is the same. Only the other day when Mr el. C.Bray resigned to take up the Agentgeneralship, a laborer was elected in his place. There can be no doubt that the wealthy classes brought it all on themselves, and unless we make a great mistake they will find it difficult to counteract the influences of labor in future elections. But it is useless preaching to the wealthy classes; nothing will open their eyes to the realities by which they are surrounded. Look at them now! We have a Government which is endeavouring to soothe the public feeling by passing laws demanded by the majority of the electors of the colony. There can be no doubt that in thus trying to conciliate such jarring elements as capital and labor the Government are following the wisest and most politic course possible, yet the capitalists denounce them as socialists, communists, anarchists, and so on. The present Gocernment are the greatest enemies of anarchy and socialism, while those who offer violent resistance to popular demands are their trne friends. Never yet in human history were popular demands successrully resisted for any lengthened period of time. Frightened by the French revolution, Pitt refused to carry out reforms which he bad promised, but very soon afterwards measures more liberal than he had ever dreamt of had to be passed, and so on through all history. Only for the moderate course adopted by the present Government it is very possible that we, too, would be putting down anarchists with the strong arm pf the law. But let us not forget that we have not an army at our back as they have in England, and that consequently we have tP h§ very careful never to provoke the people t 0 ftdppt violent measures.