THE ETHICS OF OBSTRUCTION.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14837, 1 December 1913, Page 6

THE ETHICS OF OBSTRUCTION.

Although thoy are an exceedingly small minority who do not condemn the recent stonewall in tho House of Representatives, so that for practical purposes the incident is a "chose jugee," it may be worth while explaining, for the benefit of that minority, tho simple principles that are involved in the matter of Parliamentary obstruction. For a convenient text wo may take the curious statement by the Leader of the Opposition that under the conditions recently obtaining the Government could pass any measure it chose, however bad. Sir Joseph Ward can hardly have been serious when he said this, but if he were, ho overlooked tho fact that Governments never care to commit suicide, and that in any event no Government could persuade its supporters in the Houso to carry their loyalty to the point of madness. If a Government brings down a proposal which, for any reason, is quite indefensible and destructive of any sound principle, the Opposition can with perfect safety stonewall tho proposal indefinitely, and may do so with an almost perfect confidence that the Government will sur-. render. For in such a case the Government, as the attention of the public focusses itself upon the proceedings, is never very long in realising that to persist, and to beat down opposition by exhausting or closuring it, would be to sign its own death-warrant. Such- was the case when Mr Massey's party stonewalled a Bill in 1905 which the Seddon

Government had introduced, and which the late Mr T. E. Taylor called a Taylor Suppression Bill. This was also the position when the Reform Party, in 1909, stonewalled the re-introduction on the Supplementary Estimates of a voto that had been deliberately rejected earlier in the session. In each case the Government of the day tacitly admitted the righteousness of the stonewall by shrinking from the closure, and by conceding tho main point for which the stonewallers were contending. Sir J. G. Ward's unwillingness to rely upon tho closuro in tho 1909 stonewall was tho result of his realisation that ho had no merit on his side, just as his success by closure in 1902, when the Midland Railway Petitions Bill was held up, was duo to his knowledge that he was in tho right, and that the stonewallers, who were not Reformers, wero in tho wrong. Let us consider the other kind of stonewall. A Government brings in a proposal—such as the Bills which were unsuccessfully stonewalled in 1881, in 1902, and in 1913—which is perfectly proper and necessary, and which it knows is supported by a majority of tho electors. In that case it can with confidence resist obstruction to the uttermost, because public opinion will support it. Tho fact is, that ordinarily, if not invariably, no stonewall which ought to succeed ever fails, and no stonewall which ought to fail can succeed. The merit of a stonewall, indeed, is determinable by the upshot of it, for public opinion never affects.a Government more strongly or more closely than on these occasions. The, result of every one of tho stonewalls we have noted was that which public opinion approved, and which the merits of the case required, and thb is true also of the stonewall on the Legislature Bill.

A curious development has occurred in Dublin, where a fight is being carried on against Larkinism almost identical with that being waged in Now Zealand against the Federation of Labour, which, is really Larkinism under another name. Tho Larkin leaders granted permission to the unionists to unload cargo, but according to

a cable message which we publish this morning, the free labourera who had been engaged in considerable numbers, threatened to strike if the unionists wero employed, and tho latter wero thereupon withdrawn. This was turning the tables with a vengeance, and shows the danger of strikers holding out too long after they havo been beaten. W© do not anticipate tho same thing in New Zealand, sinco the newly-formed unions will bo freely open to new members, but it is certain that tho employers will stand by the men who first join the unions, and it is also absolutely certain that many of the strikers who hold out till the bitter end will find themselves out of employment, simply because their places have been filled.

A correspondent whoso letter appears in another column describes tbo position exaotly vrhep. he states that the Lyttelton election ia really a contest between the Government candidate, Mr Miller, as tbe representative of law and order, and the Red Fed. candidate, Mr MeCombs, as the representative of Mob Rule. If tbo Government candidate is defeated it will be taken all over Now Zealand as an indication that tho Lyttelton electors aro in favour of the lawless body which has paralysed the trade of the port, and by its vile -ystem of terrorism has thrown out of work hundreds of workers who had no real sympathy with the strike, but were intimidated into joining it. It is literally true that in this crisis ©very vote given against, Mr Miller, no matter to what candidate, is a vote in favour of■ lawlessness and anarchy.

The organised obstruction by which Mr Miller was prevented from getting a hearing on Friday night at Woolston, has been very properly condemned on all hands, even by many who aro opposed to the Reform Party in politics. It is not fair,' however, to hold tho people of Woolston responsible, seeing that gangs were brought from Lyttelton and Christchurch for tho purpose of causing this disgraceful interference with the right of free speech. It was quite in keeping with tho methods employed by the Federation of Labour at their ordinary, meetings, where any member who ventures to differ from the"bosses" has a very uncomfortable time, and is lucky if he escapes personal violence.

Tbe Dunedin "Star," although all its sympathies have for many years been with the party now in Opposition, is unable to approve the stonewall. In a recent issue it makes a point which the stonowallers will .find it difficult to answer:—

"These members have already put forward a plausible enough excuse for their volte face. They wanted a substitute that would prevent minority representation. On their own professions, therefore, they had a bond in common with the remainder of the Opposition —how many or how few we know not— who share with Sir Joseph Ward his love of the Second Ballot. And this bond is the principle that the majority shall rule. Yet, if the stonewall had succeeded, it would have been a glaring example of minority rule. If it is important that each member of the House should represent a majority of his constituents, surely it should follow that when they assemble the will of the majority of them shall obtain. And unquestionably thero is a great majority in the House, let alone in the country, for the abolition of tho Second Ballot."

In the course • of a speech at the Church Congress Mr Philip Snowden put forward a very common fallacy. He was urging that "the present distribution of property" could be defended only "if the poor wero poor owing to their deliberate wrong-doing." This is entirely beside tho point. It is not a question of wrong-doing, but of na.ural capacities. Millions of men, beginning poor and with no artificial advantages, havo acquired wealth by strictly honourable methods. However, Mr Snowden went on to say:—"Hard and useful work was, generally speaking, remunerated by tho lowest pay, and great fortunes came to individuals who had rendered no useful labour nor performed any useful social service." This is obviously incorrect, unless wo are to suppose that no labour is "hard"

or "useful" but that which requires only sheer muscular force. Is a •good surgeon's work neither hard nor useful, nor tho work of the administrator of a great business? By way of illustration, Mr Snowden said—«nd it ia perfectly true—that "a . notorious pugilist* is paid a thousand times tho wages of a bricklayer's labourer, and a successful comic singer moro than the Prime Minister of England or a Bishop." But this is no indictment of the present economic system: it is an indictment only cf the human nature that values pugilists antScotch comedians. Economics are involved only m this particular, that supply and demand are tho factors that determine prices. Anyone can lay bricks, but few can defeat _Ir Jack Johnson, and tbe earnings of bricklayers and pugilists differ accordingly. When wo all learn to sing as well and amusingly as Harry Lauder, Mr Lauder will not be able to earn £1 a week on tho vaudeville stage.