AN INSOLENT APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 869, 16 July 1910, Page 4

AN INSOLENT APPEAL.

In anothor column we give the text of an extraordinary letter written to the Minister for Labour by Mr. Laracy,' the secretary of the New Zealand Shearers' and Woolshed Employees' Association. As our readers are aware the shearers, through their secretary, have proclaimed that they will, not shear in the coming season unless the Arbitration Court awards 20s.- a- hundred; In taking -up this- attitude tfiey are quite within their rights; but what a travesty of reason and justice it is, and what a commentary upon tho new and angelic temper bred by the Arbitration Act, that a union, professing to submit its caseto the Court, should announce beforehand that it will accept no award that does not please it! The proceedings before tbe Arbitration Court on Thursday, which have led to the writing of Mr. Laracy' s insolent appeal to-the Minister against tho Judge, who has not even heard the case', yet, were summarised in a telegram in our issue of yesterday. Mr. Laracy did not deny, what indeed he has taken pains to tell everybody, that the union will not accept a lower rate than £l a hundred; and the Judge thereupon said that in view of the attitude of the union, it was a question whether the Court should make an award at all. When any parties approached the Court, he said, it was their duty to accept the award made, not to coerce, men to refuse to work under it. He further said that "unless the Court is satisfied that the union' abandoned its quite untenable position, freedom of contract will be restored." We thjnk that although Judge should do what ho can' to 'defend the dignity and integrity of the Court, it is still tbe business of the Court to make an award, let the coirsequences be what they may. That, however, is for the moment an issue apart from the issue raised by Mu. Laracy's appeal to the Minister to coerce the Court on the union's behalf. No language would be too strong to apply to this impertinent letter. Not only are the Judge's, words and attitude distorted, Tmt the union which has, as a fact, decided to insist on 20s. before the case is heard is actually censuring the Court for prejudging the case, which, as a fact, it has not done. Wo arc unable to say what response the Government will make to the preposterous demand that_ it shall ask Parliament to "over-ride" the Court, but unless the Government takes leave of its senses, we cannot see how it can dare to interfere with, what Mr. Laracy,- with superb unconscious humour, calls "judicial coercion." If this is the spirit of trades-unionism, the sooner the Act goes the better. It can only be Maintained, obviously, at the cost of a disastrous weakening of the lawabiding spirit, which has already suffered damage from tho readiness shown to suspend the operation of the Act on occasion in the past.