THAT PIECE OF IMPERTINENCE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1174, 8 July 1911, Page 7

THAT PIECE OF IMPERTINENCE.

.'■Sir,—Now that tho award in the carpenters' case is made, and the case is no longer sub judice, permit me to make a few- remarks-upon what his Honour was pleased to call- my impertinence'in referring to' the legality of exemptions. Section 80 of the Act says: —"Any party . . . may appear personally or by agent, or, with the consent of ail, tho parties, by barrister or solicitor." There were 400 persons (employers) cited, and if any one of those parties objected to |oiir employing counsel, that objection would bo fatal. Similarly, if there was.ono party out.of town whose consent for that reason we could not obtain, the omission to obtain that one Con : sent would still be fatal to the employment of counsel. The fact that there wero 400 parties was sufficient to exclude tho idea of the possibility of unanimous consent to the employment of counsel. Tho 'question of exemption was duo to, and arising out of, the award. As the duly-appointed agent and advocate. for the union, I was tho only person qualified, and as I hare already shown, I had a statutory right-to bo there, and'to be heard. Supposing that my argument on this point (had I been allowed to put it) was bad, 'that my knowledge of the' law was faulty, then the Court would have discarded it, and tho position would have been unaltered. But my union would have had tho satisfaction of knowing that it had presented its case before tho Court to tho best of its ability, and, if that presentation had failed to secure it justice, tho fault would lay with the law and not with the Court. When, in addressing, the Court, I entered upon tho question of exemptions, Mr. Justice Sim said that' the Court had no desi'ro to hear me upon that point at' that stage. Upon my pressing- the point, I was assured that 1 should have an opportunity of dealing with it later on, but that opportunity never came, tho Court applying the closure in an unusually abrupt manner at a later stage. Again. New proposals were submitted by the other side without notice. I was not allowed time to consider them; I was not allowed an opportunity of even .referring.to them. It it should appear that any of these proposals have found their way into the award without the union being heard or consulted, then clearly tho Court would be guilty of an injustice. Now, has it not already been guilty of an injustice in regard to exemptions'? Section 81, Arbitration Act, says:—"The Court shall in all matters before it have full and exclusive jurisdiction to determine tho same in such manner in all respects as in equity and good conscience it thinks fit." If the words "equity and good conscience"- were omitted, the powers of tho Court would be very farvenching, but it is quite evident that tho jurisdiction of tho Court is limited to what is embraced in the words "equity and good' conscience." That the power of the Court (as shown above) may bs abused is emphasised by the remarks of tho Appeal Court in ex parte Baxter, Vol. 8, N.S.W., A.R., p. 103, which reads as follows:—"At the same time, as I have pointed out, this Court (Court of Appeal) can still exercise somo measure of restraint, on the Industrial Court. And I venture, to hope flint that Court (i.e.. the Arbitration Court) will, in cases whero its jurisdiction is doubtful, hold its hand, and delay its decisions, so as to enable the question to bo tested in the Supreme Court." (The New South Wales Act, ns regards jurisdiction, is our own Act.)

In refusing to hear nur union on tho question of exemption, (he Court has openly violated the equity and good conscience clause, and, in ruling us out in that rnspect, has exceeded its jurisdiction. If this were the only point of importance, the question might well bo allowed to rest. Hut behind this there arc more important questions, involving the industrial peace of the immediate or very near future. Semple and Co., backed up by the Minors' Federation, and the revolutionary Socialists, are preaching the abolition of the Arbitration Court, with a view to a gigantic industrial upheaval, before which the maritime strike would palo into insignificance. And they are securing a big following. In common .with others connected with the Trades Hall, I have done my host to combat these heresies. I havo pleaded for loyalty to tho Arbitration Court and Constitutionalism; have preached continually that the Arbitration Court is susceptible to evidence. The Court itself hns done tho best it could to prove that I am a liar. Personally. I stand between the Devil and the deep sea. Am I to admit the impeachment that I am a liar, that tho

I Court is not susceptible to evidence, and allow Semple and, Co. to triumph over the fact that the Court itself has in this case proved that it is no place for, or of no use to, the worker; or am 1 to take tho only alternative ami say that tho Act as a wholo is right in principle, but that it is (he constitution of the Court which is fo blame, that so long as the Court is presided over by a gentleman who is sd much of a legal machine that ho is too little, of a human being—the Court must be a failure. In conclusion: Seinplo and Co. are out to bring about industrial and commercial chaos, and others, who, like myself, have endeavoured to combat this doctrine, are continually abused by them' for so doing. The.' employers and others (whom Semple and Co. would crush) brand us as agitators. Where do we come in? Would it not bo as well for ourselves if we withdrew from tho fight, let the'unions cancel the registration, and throw the Arbitration Court overboard? Let Semple and Co. run tho show, the first act of which would be universal, widespread industrial strife, followed by commercial chaos. If you will not have peace, you will have war.—l am, etc, „„„ W. MADDISON. President Wellington Central Branch Carpenters and Joiners. /Agent for the union in recent arbitration case. July 3, 1911. , PARSIMONY, IMPERIALISM, AND RED TAPE. ' Sir,—An ill-timed act of parsimony during Coronation . tiiuo by a Government noted for its prodigal extravagance is well illustrated by the following. In the "wilds of Hawke's Bay," far from tho public ken, fifteen dreary miles distant from a post office or neighbour, is a small school upheld by a settler who resie.es in this solitary oasis. The little ones attending this school seldom see any of those gorgeous spectacles and public demonstrations which delight tho pupils of town and other schools more conveniently located, and give them something to think about. Now, when so much stir was being the Coronation of our good King George, and when Imperialism was echoed from' one Ministerial platform to another, I wrote to the Hon. Minister for Education asking him to give Coronation medals for the children of this "out of the world" school. Did 1 receive them? Alas, no! Ked tape came beforo Imperialism. ,1 was politely informed that the school not being under Government no medals could be issued. Surely, sir, under the circumstances red tape might hare been laid aside on such a glorious occasion. Doubtless, thero are many spare medals, which in a few weeks ! time will find a resting place in the waste heap. Yet the member of an Imperialistic Government declined Jo gladden the hearts of a few small Dominiemtes and encourage them to join in the universal cry, "God save the Kiug.'-I t " n ',t t Sy June' 27, 1911. WHERE ARE WE DRIFTING? Sir—l read in the local press that' Mr. R C. Kirk, a member of the Wellington Hospital Committee, wishes to invest tho District Medical faculty with the power to appoint the honorary medical staff in order to avoid "canvassing, tor winch read "wire-pulling." In connection with this' Mr. Kirk Telatcd. to :the delegates of tho Health Conference a case where tho members of a certain church had canvassed every member of a board to gel; the name of a certain practitioner on the honorary staff. "To my amazement, he added, ''that man was appointed 111 preference to other practitioners who had been in the place tor years; and, stranger to relate, the man was not even resident in tho hospital district." I know not Mr. Kirk, nor have 1 any. idea as to who the doctor thus appointed might be, but which I know, beyond doubt, is that influences of-all sort, social, business, religious, political, etc., help more to success than either brains or morality,. not. "only in -the- appointment of ■ an.,:incompetent doctor, which, after all, is a trifling matter to those who do not suffer through him; but in all departments of life—even in the army, even in the navy. Because, when a nation' adopts a principle it must logically follow it to its extreme consequences, even to the risk of its own safety. Is it to be wondered at if, in consequence, nobody in this little community feels induced to mako a mental effort in order to rise; and that Now Zealand is drifting-God knows where to—under the leadership of all sorts of wire-pulling? And is it to bo wondered at if all sensible men are afraid' to have children knowing that all chances are denied to them and most libcra.Ur dbled out instead on tho strength of undue influences? And is it to be'wondered at'if the number of tho fit;dwindles- and that' of the unfit increases in proportion? In connection with medical appointments I beg to recall here that when I stood for tho Hospital Board at the last election I suggested that the frimily status of the doctors applying for appointment to tho honorary staff .should be taken into consideration, i was as simple then as to flatter myself with the hope that this principle, if -adopted, might, with the help of the parson and tho press, go on gaining ground, and ultimately prevail in all departments of life, thus transferring the test of the natural selection from what I call the stomach, to what I call the heart and mind. You may imagine my surprise, sir, when a local paper, on the eve of the election, came out strongly advising the electors to vote for the old candidates who had prevented a policy of economy with efficiency, and for none of the new ones because 110110 had brought forth anything good to recommend them! Sir, if tho editor, of an important paper thinks so ' lightly of those doctors who undertake to rear up children, and if alt the editors of papers, all tho parsons, all tho politicians, nil the "employers of laboifr, and all the landlords Were to think tho same, and I see why they shouldn't, thou I wonder not if hereafter the weak-minded, the drunkards, and tho criminals only will accept lo have children. Terhaps this is whnt has been going on for, quite a long time without tho press, the parsou, and politician being aware of it; nay, with their co-operation! Tho foundation of eugenic societies shows me that, this is the case. But what eugenic societies can do against a. principle that fosters wire-pulling and discourages tho improvement and tho prolification of the best, tho example of Greece—tho littlo country where tho scienco of eugenic originated—will tell better.

Sir, tho study of history shows me that these are the pillars of a modern society: the family, the religion, and the press.. In the instance quoted by Mr. Kirk," and in tho other quoted by me, we see the parson and tho press standing for .'.wire-pulling against morality and science. Is it to be wondered at if-'tho' family decays in consequence? If but few can see things in tho way I do, it is because: quas deus vult pcrdero dementat. —I. am, etc., . E. BORGHETTI, M.D. July 2, 1911.