OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3195, 15 April 1911, Page 3

OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

SAYING THEIR FACES

lI’EOM OTJB SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] SYDNEY, April 5. The necessity of explaining a development that appeared inexplicable has at last dawned on the Ministry. How could Mr D. McDonnell, the Colonial Secretary, serve the Cabinet with Mr Holman acting as Premier, when, in the famous letter which was read before the Labour Conference, he had stigmatised Mr Holman as a traitor to the cause and had requested him to transfer his enmity from the inside of the party to the outside? How could an actingPremier tolerate the presence of so abusive a colleague? Every honorable instinct recoils from the contemplation of such a. position, and the inference was inescapable that honorable instinct in Labour circles must be mainly conspicuous by its absence. But it is now explained that, although the letter in question went to the conference and to the public under the “imprimatur” of Mr McDonnell, be had no part in its composition, for as the time he was On a sick, bed, suffering from “ptomaine poisoning,” from which he has not yet j recovered. Therefore, all things are lovely. But are they? There has been no public repudiation of the opprobrious stigma affixed to Mr Holman over the signature of Mr McDonnell. The stigma remains, but it is stated that. Mr McDonnell is not personally responsible for it. Who, then, is responsible for making the accusation and for standing to it after it was made? The governing body of the Australian Workers’ Union? Is the Colonial Secretary still the secretary of the A.AV.TJ. ? If so, how can he honourably fill the two offices, and serve at one time a body which declares his chief to be a traitor and at another time act as the colleague of tlie Minister thus attainted? This is “one man, two billets” with a vengeance. It is worse: it is trying to serve two masters, who by the showing of one of them, are as opposite as God and mammon. Besides, can any sane person believe that Mr McDonell’s signature would have been affixed to a document of sucli a character unless those who affixed it had very good grounds for believing that it conveyed liis sentiments? If they had not such grounds, what are we to think of him for still clinging to bis portfolio under such a Premier ? The so-called explanation raises questions even more compromising than the one which it attempts to answer. Those who are jealous for the purity of public life are declaring that there must be a withdrawal somewhere before even the most rudimentary demands of political decency can be met, either a withdrawal of the charges ns public as the making of them ;a withdrawal of Mr McDonnell either from the Ministry or from tlie A.W.U. : or a withdrawal of Mr Holman from office. Probably none of these tlungs will be done. The remaining horn of the dilemma is that the party will suffer grievously in public estimation as long as it shows itself insensible to an anomaly which shocks every sense of self-respect. SHORTAGE OF LABOUR.

Unable to obtain workers to fill their orders, Sydney manufacturers propose to import' labour on their own accoimt. Considerable interest is being aroused by the movement. In the first place, under Labour pressure, successive Ministries have made the importation of labour very difficult. In the second place, the restrictions which have been placed on the employment of labour, especially the minimum wage and preference to unionists, will render its ab-sorbt-ion very difficult if, or when, it is imported. Even now much labour would be available if the law permitted its employment at practicable mercantile rates. Old and slow workers, at one end of the scale, and learners at the other, are unable to earn the minimum wage, and leave even a living margin to the employer. Our sapient legislators have decreed that it is a less evil that these people shall be idle than that they shall' work for. less tran the arbitrary amounts which have been fixed, It is not surprising, therefore, that many people are beginning to think that it would be wiser to remove the restrictions on the employment of the people that are already here than to import large numbers of town workers. who, if there were to be.a change in our fiscal policy, might have to suffer a great hardship. Accor din 2 to Sir Wm. Lyne such a change is within the bounds of possibility. He said recently that if the Labour majority could not carry the referendum so as to inaugurate the “new protection,” they would probablv turn and rend the old protection. In such a case, what would become of the immense number who are betaking themselves to exotic manufacturing pursuits and who, to a great extent, are unfitting themselves for onrrving on the great primary industries which are the real mainstay of the Commonwealth P There is every indication. however, that the shortsighted and fainthearted dread of immigration bv which the Labour men seem to he obsessed will very soon come into sharp conflict with the rapidly growing conviction that immigration on n large scale is the only mode of providing for the defence of the country, as well as the most obvious of tvomotiug its nrosnorify. Tf public opinion wins tlie dav, in suite of +’m unhnlv oombinntioo that is arrayed against It. there will he no need for Ho ,—ivn torturers to take potion to supply their own requirements.

THE CENSUS. The taking of the census proved to be, like many other things which seem .easy enough, when one thinks them over, or even when he writes his plans on paper, but the actual execution proves to be a very different matter. All that was recjuiread was that every person in the Commonwealth should o-et a card, and should fill it in with the required particulars. Xo make assuiance .doubly sure, it was provided that every householder should be lesponsible for the cards being duly filled in by those who slept in his domicile on Sunday night. What could be more simple or more complete ? On papei, uhat indeed? But in operation how different. It would appear, either than the number of collectors was insufficient or that they were not allowed sufficient time to do their work thoroughly, Tor on Monday it was found that the office was thronged with persons who had not received cards, but who desired to fulfil-their obligations as good citizens. But what about those who received no cards and who did not trouble themselves to apply for them? The present outlook is that the census will give an inadequate presentation of the population of Sydney, and as evei y one omitted means a loss of revenue and may possibly involve loss of representation into the bargain, it is a rather serious matter. In addition to those who were overlooked, some were too illiterate and stupid to understand the requirements, which were more ex-

f acting than those of the previous ceni sus. Where they were willing, the eol1/lectors, of course, could get the information from them. But some are insubordinate, and if they are determined to dodge the inquiries, they can usually find some means of doing so. In theory avo were building on the census to settle many disputed questions. After it has been taken, avo are much less certain than we Avere that the conclusions obtained from it will be absolutely decisive.

ARBITRATION FIRST—AND THEN ? There is a curious parallel betAveen the deliverance of the German Chancellor on the reduction of armaments and tlie attitude of the militant trades unions Avith respect to compulsory arbitration. What agreement Avould stand a day, asks the Chancellor, against national needs, or against an insult to national vanity? Nominally, industrial awards are compulsory, while national agreements cannot be. But in reality, the industrial aAvards are not compulsory either, except as to one side. The union men laugh them to scorn whenever it suits them. My space would be insufficient to give even the names of the unions Avhich have defied the awards. It is no reply to say that the aAvards Avere unreasonable. In the nature of the case it was impossible that they could be as satisfactory to both sides as agreements which, both sides bad freely adopted as the best obtainable. But Avhy compel one side to obey them whether they are unreasonable or not, Avhilst the, other side defies them ? But that belongs to another story. The point is that the cynical' Chancellor declares that the Aveak Avere made to be the prey of the strong, and that, as it Avas in the beginning so it always will be. The unions say the same thing both by AAord and deed. But here the parallel fails. Recognising that national agreements on the subject of armaments are futile because there are no means of enforcing their obseiwance, tlie Chancellor consistently refuses to be a party to a farce. We are confronted by the same impossibility of enforcing the observance of industrial agreements on the more numerous party, yet Are persist in legislating and in endeavouring to legislate (the referendum, to Avit) as if this glaringly futile expedient Avas bound to supply a solution of the problem. “Try ail legal methods first,” is the advice of the agitators. “You ahvays have the strike in reserve.” Among the latest to dispute an aAvard are the operati\ r e bakers. The outcome of the legislation Avhich Avas to prevent strikes is that there are almost certain to be a great many more strikes than ever. Yet this is the twentieth century! TAXABLE INCOMES.

A very suggestive table has been published shoAving a remarkable increase in the number of taxable incomes. Of incomes over £IOOO and under £2OOO it is stated that there were in 1907 1304, totalling £1.771,000. 111 1910 there Avere 1425, totalling £1,987,000—a fair, but not a sensational, increase. But of incomes under £SOOO and over £2OOO the number increased from 579 to 734,- of incomes betAveen £SOOO and £IO,OOO the number increased from 156 to 214 ; and of incomes above £IO,OOO the number increased from 118 to 180, and the amount from £3,900,000 to £4,900,000.' So large an increase in three years seems incredible. It suggests either that there has been some error in the compilation, or that there is some difference in the mode of arriving at the results which vitiates the comparison. Undoubtedly, the table, Avhich, by the way, is published by the “Sydney Morning Herald,” ivill he used as an argument in favour of siioaa’ing lioav rapidly Avealth is being piled up by some -favoiired individuals. But, in default of more detailed information, it does not carry any comnction. It is regarded as a certainty by the Avay that the exemption limit Avil! ho reduced if the Government can effect it, Avlien Parliament meets, and that many Avho noAv escape the vexatious impost Avill again he saddled Avith it.