Education or Decadence SEE PAGE 4
I II Labour and Capitalism. SEE PAGE 3
Co=operation and the Labour Movement. ALDERMAN GRIFFITH'S CRITICA, ANALYSIS. THE INJUSTICE OF THE EXOESS PROFl '» TAXATION. KEEN DISCUSSION AT DOWLAIS CONFER- ENCE. The gross unfairness of the Excess Profits Tax ation as applied to Co-operative societies; and the urgency of the embarkation of Co-operation lto politics were ably handled at the Conference or the Brecon, Monmouthshire and East Glam- organ District Association of Co-operative ooie- ties, by Alderman C. J. Griffith, the president of the Dowlais Society, at Dowlais on Saturday. The discussion which followed the paper was for the ttiost part encouraging to a Labour Party co- Operator; but unfortunately even amongst such keen co-operators as are sent to these conferences there is a chaos about the thinking on this ques- tion, and a reluctance to get to grips that is sur- pnsmg, when one remembers that the Trades Unions have already pioneered the road vears ago.. S. Godfrey, presided, and after a brief re- xerence to the advent of the new year—which he hoped would speedily see peace—he passed on to the presentation of the Executive Committee's *'«Port of the visitation of its members for the PUrpose of discovering the best methods of spreading Go-operation in the valleys embraced ÏIl1 the district. He was certain that good fruits Would he gathered by Co-operation in the various centres as the- result of these visits. There was feeling, be said, amongst most of the Societies t.Íla,t under the peculiar conditions in which we fin ourselves to-day, it was not advisable to sti'ike out with a strong propaganda for new itlelllbe, since increasing membership only ^eant added difficulties just now, when a diffi- otlltv was experienced by societies now in filling «e wants of their old members, especially in e*pect to such commodities as sugar. But it ^as felt that a general scheme of propaganda should be adopted at the earliest possible mo- Illent,anlj amongst the methods suggested were a. recourse to advertising—in newspapers and cmemas, theatres, etc.-which had been ne- glected m top pa-sr. The orivate traders all used tins system, and it was suggested that the Co- operative societies should follow suit but that instead of the advertising being left to the whim of each soesety, it should be taken up as a col- lective scheme by all the societies, so that it Would he worked efficiently and economically. Another good idea put forward was that there should be a natural Co-operative Day, on which Kigantic propaganda meetings would be held in different centres, and public attention called Markedly to Co-operation and its advantages. Classes for members' children and men's guilds were strongly advocated from the educational side, and many other suggestions which were leaily good and from which undoubtedly much good would oome after the war. Representatives from Troedyrhiw, rreharris. 'i-e h a,rr i Jrecynon and Cwmdare, and YnVsbwl presented Sports of Co-operative progress which were most (ltleourng Alderman C. Griffiths then read his paner He Said: Mr. Qhairman and Friends,—It is fortunate tor me that the suggestion that I should be the person to read the' paper at this particular meet- iinS should h&re come when it did; for, whereas, ? ?'?nary circumstances I can imagine that th+ of selecting a subject that shall prove -??sally interesting and provacative of discus- SiOn is one even more difficult than that of pre- paring the paper itself; the conditions at the mo- ment are so extraordinary in so far as the re- ationship of the Cooperative movement to the Excess profit tax is concerned that I had no diffi- culty in selecting my subject. In fact, I might Say that the subject was one which could not be avoided, even had I desired to pass it over. But I have no desire to evade the expression of ?y own opinions on some points of this vexed es^01 and on some necessary development of bhe position it has revealed. In conversation I h,a.vQ found opinion amongst the rank and file of ^operators so chaotic that I have no doubt.that, qui?e apart from the, I am afraid, slender merits of tbts paper itself, the exchange of opinions s?ongst us at its close will contribute something anSible to the knowledge of the movement in gouth Wales on this very vital and important question. »' i• Tho breadth of the subject and the time at my isposal will, unfortunately, necessitate the omis- ln of many important points in connection with th"^tion, points such as the strange apathy f the Union Executive and other high officials of +i e movement, which in the interests of the th lnocra^i° Control of the movement should be thoroughl" threshed out at the earliest possible atS £ iSriii';ntto which I des i re to draw your attei?.i ? ??the intimate connection between the ll>tJOl1 ls the intimate connection between the _pj-e,se nt Pc"?tiola of affairs arising out of the ad- IUJSSIOn of c, fi tacitly made by so many of the societief s 111 payment ll1,a eo. tax, and our ], "-ltl'eS In the payment of thIs tax, and our ul(i h)i 4 ?"iend the assessment of Co-opera- tin', j}J'oht: .for Income Tax. Whether bv acci- èen or dIg, a.nd I am not prepared to dog- l?n4isc,, 1,?; to Wh, is best fitted to the Preset lSt0a of affairs, the legislature has ￼ ? ?" ?? brought Co-operat?e bulk divi- Z w ™ c lases into the same category as the dividen^ d earned i-u private mdustrv by a stable amount of Invested money. The justice of "11(, ol)f 'v'? Movements, keen opposition ? ?t.? l?e past to ar'Y such assessment has been borne otnH +h thB hndipgs of at least one Commission, and is admit?d in I?w ? a?d this departure from <?'' UDcompromj.smg hostility to any sn.eh assess- "?t coitstitutes a most. dangerous precedent. The admis6ion, Impnüd by the pavment of this C A' that there is any such thing as profit in its taxation senSB in the Co-operative movement, de- stroys the force of all our old contentions, and Strengthens the hands of our opponents not in an arithmetic bwt in a geometrio ratio. Once profit is admitted I can seo no possibilities of escaping the past-war imposition of taxation on q "di .idend." u are aware of the general principle ss Profits Taxation, and probably the you hailed the proposal to impose .xlinary tax as a just and practicable sting in the payment of the war. With al aspect and its justice—or want of no concern here. What I have to u is to call your attention to its obvious injus- tice as applied to Co-operation. Since the Act in its very title applies to profits, perhaps the way to approach a brief consideration of -•■I effects on Co-operation will be to ad- -ess to ourselves the question Do Co-operators make profits ? I am quite well aware that the Chambers of Commerce and a certain number of our own members would not hesitate to return an affirmative answer to that query, but to the unprejudiced man who pauses to think for a few minutes it must be obvious that it is as impos- sible for a man to make a profit by selling goods to hiiuself, as it is for a community to exist by taking in eaoh other's washing; or to increase a weekly wage by transferring it from pocket to pocket. Profit is the surplus coming to a trader or manufacturer from the sale of commodities at a price in excess of the pricse to him of those commodities. Since Co-operation means the wholesale purchase of goods by a body of men and women for re-sale to themselves it is obvious that profit is impossible. It might be asked what then is Dividend? The best answer I can give is that Uo-opørative dividend is not and never was dividend. For various reasons the Co-opera- tors decided that they would sell at or about the ruling retail prices, and since they buy at one price and sell to themselves at another and higher price ,there is obviously a surplus. This is a saving j dividend, as we know, is nothing rinore than the exercise of thrift and as such it was reported upon by the Commission appointed under the Chancellorship of Mr. Lloyd George, if I remember aright. When the principles of Excess Profits Taxa- tion were first mooted I heard Co-operators argue on its justice, and the opinion was invariably ex- pressed that it would apply to Co-operation in the taxation of an increased dividend on the basis of the increase over the pre-war rate. Thus if in 1914 a Society was paying a dividend of 10 per sent., and this was now li*i per cent., the tax would be charged against the additional 2t per cent; the 10 per cent. pre-war basis being untouched. Before passing on to, a brief out- line of what Jias actually happened I should again like to aiffri-it my own opposition to even this principle. If the 2 per cent. is admitted as extra profit; then it is impossible to contend that the 10 per cent. never was profit at all, and it would be waste of breath to attempt to with- hold the application of Income Tax assessment to the whole amount. At no point .in Co-opera- tion does profit enter, and it must follow that at no point is there room for the entry of Excess Profit Taxation. It is possible that this assess- ment of an extra 21 per cent., or other sum, was the intention of the Government, but so pecu- liarly worded was the Act that the savings or dividends to be taxed are not reckoned at the rate per £ but the total dividend received. Now, owing to the tremendous rise in the price of commodities the amounjfc of money expended on the necessities of life by the Co-operator has enormously increased, and thus the surplus re- tlM-ned to him as dividend is greater, though the rate per £ may be a little less than before the war. Let us say, for example, that a Co-opera- tor spent t40 a year at his stores and received back C4-wbieli is at the rate of 10 per cent. Now, owing to the war, suppose that for the same goods he pays £ 60, and still receiving 10 per cent., j66 comes back to him as dividend. Obviously the only excess here is the excessive costs of the goods, not due to Co-operation, but to war. The Government demands that £1 4s. of this extra t2 dividend shall 'be paid a& tax, and so the poor Co-operator is not only paying con more for the same goods, but he is further penalised by the reduction of his 10 per cent. dividend to 8 per ??- A similar examination of r ?;Mi?UO ni-nvested in a capitalist concern shows a nett gain to him. A* here, say that the capital- ist's tIOO also brought him in 10 per cent. before the war, this gives a dividend of tlO per annum. During the war profits have doubled and he now makes £20. The Government takes 60 per cent., which leaves him 40 per cent, more than he had befone the war, viz., zC14 profits. While the Co- operator loses 2 per cent. on his bulk dividend the capitalist is 4 per cent. better off-a net difference of 6 per cent. in the two methods of trading. I trust that I have made it dear that a grave injustice has either consciously or unconsciously been done to Co-operators; and I would again remind you that the admission of the principle herein inaugurated contains the gravest dangers to Co-operation. What are we to do, for I do not suppose that the most luke-warm Co-operater would urge an acquiescence in such an obviously unjust arrangement. It is obvious that the in- justice can only be remedied by an amendment of the Act; just as the prevention of similar enactments can only be secured by a more, effec- tive Parliamentary oversight of the rights of Co-operators. This question of a more effective ParHamentury action is one that has occupied the Co-operative movement for some time now, and it is plain to anyone who takes an mtelli- gent interest in the movement that its solution cannot be long delayed. So far we have had three proposals placed before us as suggested solutions, and to each of these I should like to address myself during the fed minutes remaining at my disposal. Those proposals are (1) the crea- tion of a group in the House composed of mem- bers sympathetio to Co-operation; and, concur- reny" I suppose, a consolidation of the lo. ov- ing by the movement; (2) the creation of an Independent Co-operative Party; and (3) the en- i try of Co-operation into politics as an integral unit of the existant Labour Party. Let us ad- dress ourselves to these three points. If the creatioR of a Labour Group amongst existing members of Parliament is practicable it will uil-- doubtedly form an easy way out of the difficulty, but, unfortunately, I cannot seg that the prin- ciple is anything more than a theoretic way out. If such a group is practicable we should surely in the past have seen many evidences of this sup- posed interest on the part of its individual units. Have we done so? If we take the case of the excess war profits as a criterion I am afraid that we shall not be very much en heartened as to the success of any such scheme. But a, still more serums consideration, in my opinion, lies in the fact that under any such scheme the Co-operative movement would have no effective control over the units. It would be a beggar dependent upon the charity votes of the group. The second pro- posal, though offering better control, is the im- practicable ideal of a few Co-operators. Its im- practicability is easily demonstrable. The greater number of prominent Co-operators are already engaged and actively engaged in politics. In the majority of oases they are, I am proud to say, active and prominent- workers in the Labour Party; in other cases they have rendered yeo- man service to the Conservative and Liberal Par- ties, and will do so again when Parliament poli- tics become acute. So far as the rank and file are concerned, the proportion of members who could be depended upon to vote on a Co-operative ticket is negligible, and will remain so. The only effect of the creation of x separate party would be to create an undesirable antagonism; which would react adversely on the Co-operative move- ment in the event of a political turnover in any constituency, if that turnover was even remotely attributable to the Co-operative vote. The en- try of politics into Co-operation has already spelled disaster in many cases. In Darwen in Lancashire. tor instance, a political dif- ference between the liberals and Tories led to a wholesale secession from the Society and the inauguration of a rival stores which was certainly more advantageous to the private traders there than to either the Liberal or Tory stores which were more concerned in spitting venom than in attacking the common enemy. It is an impracticable scheme, because there is no spontaneous call for the creation of such a party; nor will there ever be for a party whose "ideal" must be to protect vour divi- dend." I, myself, am a whole-hearted advocate of the third alternative. The entry of Co-operation into the Labour Party will on any considerable proportion of its membership give it a prominent place in that Party, will ally it to a party at present almost exclusively sympathetic to its view points. Whatever Co-operators, as indivi- duals may think, the circumstances are such that this puoblem is one that must be faced and faced squarely and unflinchingly by all who have the webrare of k.o-o])wi, n heart. If wc are to continue to exist under the enormously in- creased pressure of past-war conditions—and to every thinking man who keeps his eye on the over £ 4,000,000,000 on which interest will have to be paid by this and future generations a fore- cast of the intensity of that pressure is not diffi- cúlt-and I repeat if we are to survive that pres- sure then we must face -ffiiis problem of meeting our enemy on somewhat more equalised terms without sophistry, and with only the best inter- ests of our great movement at heart. Those who would differentiate from the great body of De- mocracy- that is now in existence, commit the most grievious error; they pervert the facts of the case to meet their own pet theories, and opinions. Since those early days when Robert Owen first pronounced the ideal of the Co-oper- ative commonwealth, the enemies of Co-operation have been the enemies of what consolidated later to form the Labour Party and for precisely the same reason has that enmity been displayed in the one case as in the other. We like the econo- mics of Labour challenge the system upon which competitive capitalist enterprise is found; we deny to the upholders of that system their right to a free scope for their legally sanctioned power to exploit the worker. Right into the teeth of the fallacious doctrine of supply and demand we have been compelled from bitter experience to cast the gage of combat. None who are cogni- sant of the great historic factors in Co-operation can deny this.; and yet we have for the sake of avoiding friction by the interference with the political opinions of those who differed from us who were so pur-blijid as to profess a, political faith the very antithesis of their Co-operative theories; laid ourselves open to the attacks of our opponents on a field which they have been strongly entrenched; and from which their heavyartillry-carefully cast by the representa- tives of their own class-can do us infinite dam- age aye, even to the point of extermination. Most of the Co-operators who have most bitterly opposed the Iltroductitm of politics into Co-oper- ation are fond of quoting their misreading of biological facts and telling us that in the struggle for existence the victory goes to the strong. It is not my desire here to combat that doctrine with the other theory of progres- sion by mutual aid. I am prepared to accept the theory that to the strong must ftie victory go, and in that connection I would ask whether it is going to make for the strength of Co-opera- tion or Private Trade to leave Co-operation as we find it to-day, unorganised; untutored; and unprepared on the, political field, where are the great battles of the future between us and our op- ponents going to be fought out ? At present there can be no battles >; only a stubborn resistance; which will be overcome by unscrupulous legisla- tion. The profits of private enterprise whether derived as profit from an individually owned business or as dividends from syndicated trading are the very life's blood of those who to-day hold the reins of power and authority in the councils of the nation, and it is as unreasonable to suppose that they will surreRder their self- interests, as to suppose that we will. Every and any power will be ased to combat us; for it is to Co-operation that the hard-pressed worker of the future is going to turn, as it was to Co-operation that he turned in the past. Where shall the clash come. From bitter experience of inimical legislation were the trades unions with their diversified memberships forced t(i) a confession of the unfairness of the fight so long as the em- ployer was politician as well as emplover, and from that bitterness was the Labour Party born. To-day we are where the trade unions where, be- fore that party gave promise of a semblance of fairness; and ultimate victory to them. Already we have felt the first pinches of a class-interest dictated legislation, ar& we going to be as wise as the trades-unionists of a past decade; or are we content to continue to mouth senseless shib- boleths and foolish nonsenaes ? Where shall the fight take place ? There is only one place where it can take place if the fight is to have even a possibility of successful issue for us, and that upon the floor of the House of Commons, where, if we are to be true to ourselves and our mem- bers, past, present, and to oome, an united La- bour Party, comprised of trades unions, Co-oper- ative societies and all what goes to make up the fighting force of Democracy, shall demand not as a kindness, but as a right that equality of treatment which alone can militate against the inevitable use of the strongest weapon the I nation possesses against us. We and those, who like us, earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, whether as manual or mental labourers, we the great proletariat of this land, are the voice of the land, but if we are not prepared to see that we ourselves speak clearly and emphati- cally, what right shall we have to complain that the laws wherein that voice is expressed are dis- tortions, nay, complete perversions of what we meant to say, of what it is essential in the very interests of our existence must be said without fear of equivocation or misrepresentation. To Councillor Powell, who declaimed politics, the only question was whether the members would be increased and the movement strength- ened by the adoption of the suggestion put for- ward in the paper? Mr. T. Morris, though he did not agree with the whole paper, agreed almost entirely with regard to the remarks on Excess Profits Taxa- tion. Where Co-operators made profits from a.rmy contracts at marked prices it was only fail: that those profits should come under the opera- tion of the Act, but ordinary Oo-operative busi- ness with their own members was a different thing. He thought that the mistake had been made in copying the ways of trading of the pro- ifteers with regard to dividend. He did not be- lieve in making Co-operation a political organi- sation at all. Co-operation was above party and above politics. Mr. D. J. Lewis said that the reason the move- ment was suffering from the Excess Profits Taxa- tion was because the opponents of the movement were entrenched in the Government of the land. These had placed Co-operation where it was to- day by the use of the machinery of the Govern- ment. If we wanted to look after our own house- holds we must look after ourselves on the politi- cal field, and drop those ideas of Co-operation being above those things which were used against us by the multiple traders who sat in Parliament, not as multiple traders, but as adherents of the two parties. The proper place for' Co- peiijtion in politics was as a part of the Labour Party. Councillor Blackmoor agreed to a certain ex- tent with the solution offered in the paper. A large number of Co-operators were party politi- cians first and Co-operators last, and the persons who opposed us always put their businesses first and their politics last. He knew of no Party better able to serve the interests of the Co-opera- tive movement than the Labour Party, and he believed that if we were to work out our own salvation it would be by combining with the La- bour Movement. Mr. Lewis (miners' agent) in praising the pa- per said it was difficult to prove the Co-operators point of view because the movement had ever begun to indulge in dividend at all, and to the extent that we had indulged at all we had been expropriated. He could not help but believe that the real clean way out of the difficulty of Excess Profits Taxation would have been to say there was no dividend at all. That the dividend was not a profit in the sense that we understood profits in the current phraseology and sentiment of the land he absolutely agreed, but we had made it so much like profit that we could not make the profiteer see it in any other way-and the profiteer was in control. That was one rea- son why we should link up with the Labour move- ment in politics, but there were other and more important reasons than that. We should not come into our own-as we ought to in the ideals of all those present-until we got a settlement of the land question. How were we to get there ? Only as politicians we could depend upon it. The land was taken away by Act of Parlia- ment and by Act of Parliament it would be got back. As to where we should go in political al- liances, it was the same as elsewhere. If we wanted sympathy we must go to those whose suf- ferings were similar to ours. And that Party was the Labour Party. He very much disagreed with Ramsay Macdonald to-day, but he would ten times rather put a Co-operative problem into his hands, than in the hands of a member of the House of Lords, because Ramsay Macdonald had been brought up under similar circumstances to ourselves. Mr. Cowling. J.P., in reply to the last speaker said the great Co-operative movement had been built up on dividend; and to abolish dividend would be to doom the movement. Another dele- gate felt that if politics had to come they had better some as an independent Co-operative party. Mr. Davies (New Tredegar) greatly admired the paper because it was a, peep into the future. He could not see any inconsistency in linking up with the Labour Party. To be a Co-operator de- manded that one was first a trades-unionist, just as to be a real trades-unionist implied being a Co-operator, and as the trades-unionist was al- ready a politician in the Labour Party, it seemed to onli, consistent that the two should be joined on the political field. The aims of the two were common and they must be allied. Mr. Watkins (Ynysbwl) was afraid of the effects of joining up with the Labour Party. Alderman C. J. Griffiths briefly replied to the points raised. A. resolution was passed on the motion of the Chainnall protesEug against the persistent mis- representation of the private traders movements in respect to the position of Co-operators and the Income Tax, and reminding the Government of the finding of its own Advisory Committees on the subjects. A splendid tea was provided for delegates by the Dowlais Committee in the Basement Hall of the Carnegie Library.
]-I Bargoed Notes. No Scales or Labels. For not having labels 00 his coai' sacks and not carrying a, pair of scales, John Gould, coal haulier, was fined re at Bargoed om Friday. Arraars. Charles Jones (48), collier, Ystradwynach, was summoned before the Bargoed Bench last Frklay for maintenanoe arrears amounting to £19 7* under an order made in favour of his wife, Ann. The Bench committed him to prison for one month, but suspended the order so long as de- fendant paid 17s. 6ti. per week, the sum named in the Order, and 2s. 6d. off the accumulated arrears. Summons Against Schoolmaster. Charles Hy. Mansell applied to the Bargoed magistrates on Friday for a summons against Joseph Josiah Evans, schoolmaster, Gelligao'. Applicant alleged that Evans had thrashed his son with a cane the previous Tuesday. The boy, who was only 11 years of age, bore bruises over the eyes and on the arms and body, and the doc- tor advised applicant to take out a, summons. It was granted. Assault. David Jones, a aineteen-year-old miner ef Aberbargoed, was fined 40s. and 20s. costs at New Tredegar last Friday for assaulting Ominioe Fodder, a- refreshment shop assistant, on Decem- ber 29th. It was said that Jones, who was not present, went to the shop where Fodder was an assistant and struck the latter in the mouth 'be- cause his (defendant's) brother had been ejected from the shop for unruly conduct earlier in th., evening. Hid a Deserter. Herbert W. Clifton, 40, gardener, was charged at Bargoed on Friday with aiding a deserter to conceal himself. It transpired that on January 3rd the police visited defendant s house and asked what men were there. They were told that three men were present, but on making a searck a fourth, named David John Hierene, a deserter from the East Lanes. Regiment, was found ly- ing at full length under the kitchen sofa. In his defence Clifton said he knew the man was ia his house but had no knowledge that he was a deserter. He was bound over for six months, and ordered to pay the costs of the case. Shop Assistants' Meeting. On Wednesday last, January 10th, the Bargoed Branch of the Shop Assistants' Union held their annual meeting at the I.L.P. Rooms, Hanbury- road. Miss Daisy Evans presided over the meet- ing in the absence ox 'Mr. A*%r t-he minutes and correspondence the Chairman called for liemination for the election of officials for the present year, and the following were elected Chairman, Mr. W. Moss; vic-e-chairmaa, Miss D. EVans; seoretary, D. J. Jones; treasurer, A. J. W. Powell; finance committee, Messrs. Powell Jones; and general branch committee, Messrs. Jones, Moss and Powell, and Misses D. Evans, BuLock and Williams delegates to Trades and Labour Council, Messrs. D. J. Jones and A. J. IV,. Powell; to the South Wales District Council. Mr. D. J. Jones. The branch is in a very healthy condition, but there are a great number of non- umonists among the shop workers. I Trades Council Protest. 4-t a meeting of the Bargoed and Disti-ict „ Trades and Labour Council, held on Thursday, J-anuary Ilth, when there was a full attendance of delegates present, the following resolution was carried unanimously: That this Council, re- presenting 25,000 workers (chiefly miners), views with great regret the apathy displayed by both the Executives of South Wales Miners and Na- tional Union of Railwayman, who control the Central Labour College, London, in not previou&- ly seeking and demanding the total exemption from military service of Mr. W. W. Craik, act- ing warden of the above College. This Council now instructs our secretary to write both execu- tives requesting to now seek and demand tbw total exemption of Mr. Craik on the grounds that we as workers deem him as most indispen- sable in his occupation as cheaf of the educa- tional department of the Labour Movement in general and the railwaymen and miners in par- tICular. And further that our secretary writ. all Trade and Labour Councils requesting them to support and further this resolution." I Stiff Fines for Showmen. Heavy ines were imposed at Bargoed last Fri- day upon Henry Mills (45), showman, Bargoed, who was charged with using a room at the Bar- good Skating Pavilion for the purpose of gaming on December 26th; George Williams (45), show- man, who was charged with aiding and abetting, and John Scarrot, showman, occupier of the Pavilion, who was charged with permitting the Pa,vilion, Mills pleaded guilty and Williams and bcarrot not guilty. Sergeant Row visited the rink in plain clothes on Boxing Night, accompanied by P.O. Howell Jones. On the wall were two down" slot machines. During 25 minutes 20 men and boys used one machine, and only two were successful in obtaining cheques, value 2d. 17 used the other machine, and only one was successful. "No one tried the win-all machine," added witness. Williams said he had nothing to do with ma- chines. Scarrott said he was "innocent of the machines and that Mills told him he thought "they were not against the rules and reorila- tions of the country." Describing one of the machines, witness sadd y u put 't half-penny in the slot, and ?? figurê passes across, and if you are quick enough with the pistol you can shoot bun. There is a Kaiser and you palla tngger and you can shoot him &??.T? .? ￼ T!-?w=i?th M.ills was fined £ o (or 28 days). Williams £ i (or days), and Sea,i?l'Ott C:10 (oi- al days). The u air man ixmarked, carrott was to blam? e f£or pelnnttmg the use of the machine, harinb I)em warned by Inspector c&.
STAFF IS TRADES-UNIONIST, OUR TERMS ARE MODERATE, OUR PRINTING IS GOOD, And we give a guaranteed undertaking to DELIVER IN TIME