The Dominion MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1909. THE GOVERNMENT'S BACK-DOWN.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 402, 11 January 1909, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1909. THE GOVERNMENT'S BACK-DOWN.

Public opinion is practically unanimous in condemning, tho. astounding back-down of the Government in connection with the mining trouble throughout the Dominion. Even the staunches); of the supporters of the party in power have viewed with amazement the weakness of the Prime Minister in pandering to the demands of tho Miners' Federation, and thus establishing a precedent I which must have a most harmful effect in hampering the settlement of all future industrial troubles in which any large body of workers may be involved. Wo havo waited in expectation of Sir Joseph Ward advancing some reason—some defence—of the extraordinary action of his Government, but the only excuse put forward is a vague assertion that unless the course followed was taken tho industries of the country would be paralysed. The Peime Minister may have special sources of information which led him to arrive at the conclusion stated, and if so he should certainly place that information bofore the public, But when he has done that he has yet to show that the deplorable sacrifice of principlo made was justifiable, and that the public interest has not suffered more by his action than it would have done had events been allowed to run their legitimate course. Ministers, to use their own expressive phrase, declined to give a blank cheque to the miners of tho country by compelling the Stato Accident Insurance Department to insuro men against pneumoconiosis without the medical examination demanded by the mine-owners. They then weakly surrendered to the men and tenderod tho blank cheque previously refused. Now we find that this grave departure from the proper attitude first adopted has not oven to commend it the fact that it has achieved the purpose aimed at. Instead of settling tho trouble it has merely raised now issues, and issues equally embarrassing to the Government. The miners apparently aro satisfied, as they should be, although thoy appear to accept the craven sacrifice of the Government with something of the spirit of contempt which it deserves. But the mineowners are in a different position. They want to know what is to follow before they commit themselves to their new liability even under a State guarantee. Tho proposal of the Government is, admittedly, only a temporary expedientsomething to tide over the present trouble iintil the Act of last session can be amended. How is it to be amended? What will the position of the employers be then? How much will they have conceded which they cannot regain if thoy fall in with the terms of settlement now proposed? These are questions which they have to consider, and it is not burprising if they y'iew the situation with suspicion and concern. Scoing that the Miners' Federation has been able to ter-' rorise the Government, backed by the weight ,and might of the law, who is to aay how far it will bo able to influence Ministers in amending tho Act? There is one aspect of the Government's action which has not yet received attention, but which should not be overlooked. The mining companies do business with several of the accident .insurance companies, and under ordinary circumstances would insuro their risks under the Act of last session with those companies. The decision of the Government to instruct the State Insurance Department to throw aside common business prudence and take these , risk? without medical examination, dnd to recoup tho Department out of tho

public funds for any loss suffered thereby, would mean the diversion of tho whole of this business to the, State Department; that is assuming, as is certain to be the case, that the private insurance companies would not daro to enter into a similar gamble. And who is to indemnify the private companies against their loss? If they take the risks without medical examination they are certain to lose on the policies issued; and if they refuse the insurance, rather than face the certainty of loss, they lose business. . Is this fair competition on the part of the State? Should a State business department be run at a loss oiit of the taxpayers' pocket to damage rival business concerns pri.vately owned J' The Government's decision appears to be yet.another case of acting first and thinking afterwards. Having; introduced a foolish, provision into an ill-considered Act, it has sought to remedy its first injustice by an "equally ill-considered lino of action fraught with still; graver' consequences. The pitiable weakness displayed by Ministors must h* apparent to everyone, and bodes ill for the.futuro of the.so recently reconstructed Cabinet.. •","..