LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
[Letters of the length of one of our leading paragraphs are often more read, and therefore more effective, than those which fill treble the space.] --- NATIONALIZATION OP MINES.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1 Sne,—Probably the full significance of the New Zealand and Australian General Election results given in your "News of the Week " columns of December 27th is not fully appre- ciated by the general public. Advocates of the above subject will doubtles% refrain from calling widespread attention to the fact that New Zealand has had fifteen years of experience of a State owned and managed coal-mine.
Sir Joseph Ward is a Parliamentarian of very long standing. He was the late Right Hon. R. J. Seddon's leading henchman. He has been Premier, and Leader of the Opposition. Yet in advocating nationalisation of all coal-mines in that part of the British Empire with the longest experience of State mining he has lost his seat, his party has been defeated, and the Labour Party has received a check. Surely this verdict is significant!
During 1906 I worked at that State mine for experience. In 1907, though only young, I persisted in being transferred to private-owned mines because, on all sides, I heard how much better managed the latter were.
In the years that followed, the State mines became notorious as the hotbed of Labour agitation. Strikes and rumours of strikes were frequently originating from this centre of so-called Socialism. Instead of the tranquil pio- ture drawn by Mr. Smillie in advocating .nationalization to British miners as the{ panacea of all labour troubles, New Zealand has found the State mines to be a thorn in the flesh—the sanctuary of the professional Labour leader, who imagines that a state of Labour contentment and quiescence would cause the loss of his "cushy job," and necessitate his return to regular hard work. With this type of leader, when will Labour be satisfied? New Zealand has recently heard much of the I.W.W., and has dubbed it the "I won't works." And with what truth! The miners, including those of the State mines, have so deliberately restricted output by strikes and
other methods that during 1919, owing to had scarcity of coal, the railways (State-owned) have had to cut off all express services, long-distance trains have stopped at every station, no one has been permitted to travel by rail before proving that his business was essential and could not possibly be done by post, and through mails have been con- veyed by American motor-care driven by American petrol. This in spite of State (and other) coal depots throughout the Dominion!
The oft-expressed opinion of a New Zealand friend who has held a high position in the Mines Department is that (a) State mining was introduced to catch votes for the Seddon Government; and (b) it has been one of the greatest curses the Dominion has ever suffered from. The result of the General Election appears to support this opinion.
In 1911 I left New Zealand for wider experience and technical training, and was privileged to take part in the opening out of a large new colliery in England, When, therefore, I was asked to consider an appointment under the Government of a Crown Colony in the exploration and development of a virgin coalfield, my experience seemed suitable and I accepted. For me, it was a reversion to State mining. But with all due respect, my experience, for various reasons,. leads me to conclude that no Government can efficiently conduct industries in peace time. My opinion is that nationalization of coal-mines will lead to nationaliza- tion of inefficient mining, which is directly opposed to Mr. Smillie's opinion. Mr. Smillie has probably had no experi- ence of State mining.' Had Fate made him a coal-owner instead of a miners' leader, probably his conscientious opinion would, in the light of a different experience) have been totally different from his present equally " conscien- tious " opinion. So often the Union official who rises to become a master proves to be the most uncompromising member of the masters' Federation. To the best of my know- ledge, nationalization was not demanded by the miners in general till it was preached by their leaders, who stand to gain by its advent. Whom, then, is nationalization to benefit —the nation, the miners, or the miners' leaders? Should the miners hear only one side of the question? Why not arrange to present both sides to them?
In the opinion of Mr. J. H. Thomas (with whom I agree) the solution of the Drink Question lies in its nationaliza- tion. Why? Because the removal of the incentive of private profit will decrease sales; this, together with the absence of competition, will remove the incentive to greater efficienoy of manufacture; and the increased staff required and the profit demansled will maintain a sufficiently high price to characterize drink as a luxury. By some strange reasoning, Mr. Smillie argues that, by nationalization of coal-mines, output, wages, and efficiency will be increased, labour troubles reduced, workmen's conditions improved (a costly matter, though necessary), the nation will make a handsome profit, and, in spite of all, the price of coal will be decreased!
How can one reconcile two such obviously opposite effects from the application of the same remedy? Before committing ourselves to such a gamble as the nationalization of mines, let us consider carefully New Zealand's verdict after' fifteen years' experience of State mining.—I am, Sir, &c., J. S. Tans.
Previous page
