NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1248, 6 October 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

During the discussion on the Labour Department's Estimates in the early hours of AVednesday morning in the House of Representatives the question of permitting Agents to appear before the Conciliation Board to represent Ihe parties to a dispute was ventilated. The point is one of some importance, but so far as the discussion went no good reason for maintaining the right of employing Agents to conduct disputes was advanced. The Minister for Labour, it is true, raised the case of the Tailoresses' Union and contended that it was only fair that women workers should, if they desired, be so represented, and no one probably will question the reasonableness of this. But this case is an exceptional one and could be specialty provided for. It is generally recognised nowadays that the best results for_ conciliation and arbitration are obtained through conferences between representatives of those actually engaged in the particular class of industry in connection with which the dispute has arisen with an independent chairman. In such circumstances there is a clear understanding of the conditions under which the industry is carried on; all the parties to the conference, with the exception of the chairman, arc familiar with the technical details; and all the parties are personally interested in bringing about an amicable settlement. As we have pointed out on previous occasions the quite remarkable success of the "Wages Boards in Victoria proves beyond all question the value of direct negotiations between employers and employees in any given industry, and the less external influences are introduced the better for those directly concerned. Why Mr. Millar defended the employing of outside Agents to alppcar for the parties to a dispute is difficult to understand. He certainly gave no good reason in favour of it, as a general principle.

A curious and interesting contribution to the question of industrial disputes comes from Des Moines, lowa. Early in August- the dismissal of a conductor ied to a strike on the Dcs Moines tram-car system; the service was suspended, and the importation of strike-breakers threatened serious trouble. An application was made by the City Solicitor for an injunction against the strikers, aud Judge Laurence de Grait promptly granted it. He ordered the strikers to return to work, and the company to take the men back pending arbitration, on the extremely interesting ground that "the company and-employees assume an obligation to meet the duty and obligation of furnishing a tram service without injury to the people, that any breach of the contract is an injury to the people, and that the city has the rjghtto use the injunction in bringing its streets to a normal condition when they arc obstructed by reason of a strike." The men returned to work, and the company has appealed against the decision. It is to be hoped that the suit will be carried tothe Fedora) Supreme Court, for its decision, however it went, would make a valuable contribution to the study of industrial legislation.

Towards the end of August the British Government issued a return entitled "Statistics as to the Operation and Administration of the Laws relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquor in England and Wales," and the interesting and encouraging fact was disclosed that convictions for drunkenness have diminished from 63.69 per 10,000 persons in 1905 to 49.50 in 1910. Like most sets of elaborate statistics, this return had many facets. While the number of "on-lioenscs" has decreased steadily and continuously from 103,341 in'lß9s to 92.454 in 1910, the number of clubs has also steadily increased from 6371 in 1904 to 7536 in 1910. The Eye-Wilness, Mr. Hilaiee IjElloc's new weekly, discovered a singularly interesting fact. The return gives a list of 54 counties and 75 county boroughs arranged according to the number of licenses per lOJ'OOO of population and another arrangement in order of tho number of convictions for drunkenness per 10,000 of population. The five counties with the smallest percentage of public-houses were : Middlesex, Essex. Northumberland, Glamorgan, and Durham. The five with the largest percentage of drunkenness were: Northumberland, Lincoln, Durham, Glamorgan, and Pembroke. The fact that Northumberland, Durham, and Glamorgan figure in each group is rather astonishing. The five counties with the largest percentage of public-houses were : Oxford, Wilts, Kmbri,!™ Suffolk «r,A ..5™..,.-^

The five with the smallest percentage of drunkenness were: Huntingdon, Cambridge, Oxford, Rutland, and Brecon. Here again the coincidence of two counties in each, list is impressive. As to the boroughs, Canterbury has the largest percentage of licenses 'per population, and _ is second in the table of comparative sobriety. West flam, with the smallest percentage of licenses, is one of the worst in respect of drunkenness. The figures for the three big manufacturing towns in the West Biding were: ConLicenses victions per 10,000. per 10,000. Leeds 13.56 36.58 Pradfonl 20.21 25.69 Huddcrsfield 27.35 17.00 The same phenomenon is found in widely different circumstances: ConLicenses victions pel 10,000. per 10,000. Warrington 16.10 75.45 Birmingham 22.91 58.04 Wigan 22.78 31.20 Wolverhampton ... 33.88 9.63 Indeed it seems to be a general fact that the amount of drunkenness varies inversely as the number of licenses. This is clue probably to the growth of the "clubs. In any case it is plain that a reduction in the number of licensed houses does not diminish drunkenness—a contention which was made again and again by. those who advocated the removal of the reduotion issue from the local option poll.

One of the most unpleasant features of our politics is the growth of the practice of deliberate misrepresentation. Those who frequent Parliament will hear members of the Government party constantly interjecting and making statements which they know are incorrect and which are made merely to embarrass a speaker or to create a false impression with the public. It is quite fair tactics, of course, to interject with a view to exposing weakness in an opponent's argument or to dispute his presentation of facts. No one can object, under our system of party politics, to the policy of a party being criticised and condemned by those on the other side. But when members deliberately, in tho face of established facts, charge their opponents with holding views entirely opposed to the views thcyhave expressed again and again, political controversy has sunk to a very low standard indeed. And this misrepresentation is constantly occurring. Yesterday, for instance, members were discussing tho question of land settlement, member after member got up on the Government side of tho House and charged the Opposition with being in favour of land settlement under large holdings. It was pointed out, as it has been again and again, that one of the planks of the Opposition platform is limitation of area—that for years the Opposition have favoured the settlement of the lands of tho country in small holdings withprovision to secure against aggregation. Yet members of the Government party do not scruple to get up in Parliament as stated and on the public platform and make the assertion that the Opposition favours a policy of land settlement in large holdings or with unrestricted area. There would be some excuse, perhaps, if those who are doing this sort of thing were merely ignorant. But they know the position well enough and they circulate these mis-statements because they think they will damage their opponents. Possibly they have proved useful in that way in the past; but tho time has gone by when such methods can hope to meet with any material success. Bather are they likely to react to the disadvantage of those descending to the use of such dishonest tactics. It is humiliating to think that the Parliament of the country is being degraded by members so obsessed with party spirit that they see no shame in the adoption of any mean trick or device so long as they can thereby embarrass or injure their opponents.