The Press. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1913. AUSTRALIAN LABOUR AND THE STRIKE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14840, 4 December 1913, Page 6

The Press. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1913. AUSTRALIAN LABOUR AND THE STRIKE.

Mr W - M,; - Hughes, who is managing .-.-.. the policy of the waterside workers of - ' Sidney, is not in a position "to be ac- -■-'■:■.'• cepted as a candid friend of either the community or the strikers in New ZeaHe has to keep an eye upon the fact that the New South Wales elections Aro to take place immediately, ."-'?"•■ and that; a dissolution of the Federal .. Parliament cannot be-long delayed? At' the same time it is impossible to quarrel with him for declining to adjudicate as to the correctness of the two conflicting accounts of the situation, and the events leading up to it, which he has received from the Federa-- . tion delegates and the Citizens' Defence Committee. Privately, no doubt, he feels convinced that' the story of the delegates is as unreliable as'any of the many astounding inventions for which the Federation of Labour is famous, but his duty, ho conceives, is not to his private convictions, but to the political interests for which ho is chiefly concerned. The essence of lys reply to the cable message sent by the Citizens' Defence Committee is in these sontences: "To your contention that there is no "dispute, and there is nothing left to " submit to Sir Joshua Williams, or any " other arbitration, that the Federation "of Labour cannot bo recognised, and '" is to be destroyed, we cannot for one "moment assent. . . . There is a "dispute. There is something to arbi- " trate about." Mr Hughes may think so, but we in New Zealand know that there is no arbitrable dispute here. Even those who aro pretending that 1 legislation can end this trouble and establish peace on an enduring basis, know that there is one great fact which makes arbitration, by which we mean effective arbitration, quite impossible. That fact is this: the Federation, as a matter of policy, refuses to.be bound by agreements. The Federation leaders have over and over again said that agreements are binding only so long as they are considered satisfactory by the workers who have consented to them-. Let us quote again the-doc-trine as expounded.by Mr Hickey:— ** Recognise that any agreement entered "into is not binding upon you for a ?.-??" -single, instant. No, not if it were ;'?-???;l*SwßPnsd.':by': a; thousand officials and . . .- ? opportunity occurs -'to >.-' - - ■-.■ 'c , ;---->-.;'-*■-- -• ■ .*;--b.'..

" agreement. - Break it whenever it "will pay yon to do so." How can there bo dealings with a party pledged to such a view of dealings as that? It is not an abstract question. It is a practical fact that if Sir Joshua Williams or any other arbitrator were asked to draw up a treaty of peace, the treaty, so far aa the Federation were concerned, would not be worth the paper it was written upon. "Not "if it were signed by a thousand offi- " cials and ratified by a dozen Courts." No legislation can alter that fact. Nothing can make arbitration, with the Federation as one of the parties, anything better than a farce, excepting a complete change of the spirit of the Federation. And the spirit of the Federation is its life. Perhaps it is unnecessary to emphasise the impudence of Mr Hughes in prescribing the duty of New Zealand. "We may point out, however, that his airy dismissal of every fact excepting the fact that a strike is on shows that he does not realise the situation as'it exists here. This country wants peace, but it does not want a peace founded on a betrayal of the arbitration unionists, and it does not want the falso peace of a triumph for the Federation of Labour. In the meantime the community, while it will suffer injury through the interference of the unionists of another country, will not be helpless. It can see the trouble through, and as time passes, the public will realise more and more clearly that it is the avowed policy and declared character of the Federation that stand in the way of peace.