to a great extent reflect the opinions of the advertising classes, echo these dolorous cries, and enter with avidity upon a campaign which has at least the merit of creating a clear issue between the wealthy and influential classes on the one side and those on the other who, in their anger at what they have considered to be an unfair suppression of Labour opinions, have often gone to extravagant lengths in denouncing the newspaper Press.
Nor is there any danger that such a course will lead to any falling off in circulation. For the Australian Press syndicates its cable news; and for this reason, and because of its inherent strength and merits, has been able to defeat all the efforts of the Labour Party to establish a morning paper. Thus, although in their reports of news and speeches the leading Australian papers are usually fair, those who read their comments on the Labour Party and its doings must accept them as they would the comments of any party newspaper upon the actions and policy of its political opponents. It would be as proper to take the opinion of the Daily News on the Boer War as that of the Sydney Morning Herald or the Sydney Daily Telegraph on the policy and measures of the Labour Party.
Socialism is charged against the Labour Party as the head and front of its offending; but the nature of this crime is not defined. Yet what is 'Socialism'? Is it, as the Sydney Bulletin inquired in a recent issue, 'Socialism' to run a factory to make the postman's clothes, and yet not 'Socialism' to run a post-office? Or is it 'Socialism' to light a street, and yet not 'Socialism' to light a sandbank? Or is it 'Socialism' to run a mine, and yet not 'Socialism' to run a mining-battery? Is it 'Socialism' to tax land values, and yet not 'Socialism' to tax building improvements? Is it 'Socialism' to build ships, and yet not 'Socialism' to build punts?
In one sense, no doubt. Socialism is the collective ownership of all means of production; but the Aus-
