NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1436, 10 May 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Ax important decision in trade union law was delivered in Manchester the other clay by a Judge of tho Chancery Court. Three mine employees sued the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation for damages arising out of their dismissal as a result of pressure put on their employers by the Federation. The facts were that the Federation, in pursuance of a resolve to drive non-unionists out of employment, issued to the mine owners a threat or ■half-threat of a strike, and the result was the dismissal, amongst others, of the three vietimsof unionist intolerance. The decision of the Court, which appears to be quite sound in law, was against the unfortunate plaintiffs. The Federation contended that as its rules provided for the subsidising ofLabour M.P.'s it was not a trade union; it contended further that under the Trades Disputes Act, which gives immunity to trades unions against redress for tortious actions committed in furtherance of a trades dispute, it was liable to no damage. The Court found that there was a trade dispute in progress—the dispute being between the Federation and the nonunionists !—and that the Federation had not actually threatened a strike. The net result of the judgnient was, as tho Manc/texter Guardian points out, to establish the rule that "unions may put pressure on employers to dismiss workmen who stand out from the unions provided, first, that such acts are done in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute, and, second, that the union does not expressly use the threat of a strike. This is the first occasion upon which it has appeared that the statute law of England permits a more cruel intolerance to trade unions than the statute law of New Zealand. There arc signs, however, that success might attend a movement to repeal the intolerably tyrannous character of the Trades Disputes Act, which is here shown to cut at tho root of the common law rights which we recently saw upheld by Judge Denniston in the case at Grcymouth,

Speaking to a Melbourne interviewer the other day, Sir Joseph Ward attributed his downfall to the second ballot system. He still professed belief in the fundamental soundness of the Second Ballot Act, but it had acquired "a tendency not originally contemplated." Of course; the idea at the time was that Labour would be dished and that between the ballots the Ministerialist mana (a big thing_ at the time) would reinforce Ministerial bribery and bargaining in the dishing of Reform. But it ■is waste of space to arguo with Sir Joseph Ward now. We are reminded of him here by some interesting articles in the March number of Representation, the journal of the Proportional Representation Society. Its analysis of the German elections leads Representation to condemn the oft-condemned and now quite discredited second ballot system. The interval between the ballots at the last Reichstag elections was a disgraceful orgy of bargaining. That was made clear at the time. Representation does not say anything so strong as that, but it does point out that the system did not make at all for proportional representation.

"Successful candidates of tho same party" (it pointed out) "may represent quite different combinations; of parties, tho combination varying with tho political situation in tho constituencies for which they were successful. Thus the Radicals and Socialists generally agreed to support one another, but ono of the hottest fights at the second ballots was in one of tho Berlin divisions, where llerr Kaempf, a Radical, succeeded with a combination of Radical, Liberal, and Conservative votes in beating tho Socialists. Thus ono Radical deputy may represent a combination of Radical and Socialist votes, whilst another may represent a combination of Radical, National Liberal, und Conservative votes."

lii another article Representation condemns the transferable vote applied to single-member constituencies. It is noted that in several English by'-elections_ the success of any particular candidate, if the transferable vote system had been in force, would have been possible only by a combination of two parties against one, thus reproducing the effect of the second ballot system. We have nothing but sympathy for all the different advocates of electoral reform. Reform is wanted. But no reform is so much needed as the abolition of the second ballot and the restoration of the status quo ante as the prelude to a comprehensive scheme taking in the Legislative Council.

Not for tho first time, the PnuiE Minister declared in Dtincdin yesterday (he,was speaking to a deputation from the Oathns Railway League), that the verdict of tho country Rt the December polls was a verdict against "great borrowing." It was. The administrative and legislative reform _ that will make enormouß borrowing unnecessary was certainly the thing the nation voted for. Since, however, Mr. Mackenzie is as careful as he can be to avoid giving his extended reading of this verdict, they would not be unreasonable who would doubt his bona fides. He may be less concerned to keep a dutiful eye upon the December verdict- than to give the nation hints and nudges with the ivqii'dalkiu thai- thai verdict may somehow some time be nsverscd i in his favour, Perhaps Us inuuijies

that tlic nation, suddenly waking up to the fact that its demand for reform lias involved a cessation of monstrous loan adventuring, will rcncnt of its good intentions. If so, he is mistaken. We prefer to believe, however, that Mu. Mackenzie really does think that his "illustrious predecessors" overdid borrowing altogether. Only a knave or a fool would seek a way to renew the reckless financial methods of Wardismand we do not think Mn. Mackenzie is either. Since, however, he has fremtently mentioned the borrowing question without yet giving his own opinion about it clearly and fully, we think it is duo from him that he should now say just what is his policy—or, rather, what would he his policy if the existence of the Eu.s and Lauhensons of his staff did not guarantee defeat for his Ministry. What does he mean 1 Does he, or does he not, favour a continuance of borrowing on the "Liberal" scale? It is an easy question to answer. Will he answer it?