ANOTHER EXPOSURE

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1858, 18 September 1913, Page 6

ANOTHER EXPOSURE

There are times when the blundering stupidity and ignorance of the local anti-Reform journal reach such sublime heights of folly, that it would be doing injustice to our renders to miss the opportunity of enlightening them as to the value of the class of criticism which has become the vogue in local anti-Reform circles. In its issue of Saturday last, for instance, the New Zealand Times devoted over a column of its space to whatsit no doubt regarded as a criticism of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill introduced by the Massey Government. In tho course of the article it gave vent to its feelings in the following terms: It would he impossible to conceive anytlyng more oppressive and despotic than the penalty clause that has been devised to starve and thus suppress a strike. Of itself it is sufficient to condemn tho Bill and the autocratic Government that lias impudfently placed it before Parliament. It provides that any person or union shall be held to have aided or abetted a strike that makes any gift of money or other valuable thing to any individual or union that is a party to a strike.

The article then goes on to describe the dreadful possibilities of this atrocious clause; and abuses the Massey Government for daring to impose this "scandalous law" upon a tree people. The public who do not know the methods of the New Zealand Times will perhaps find it difficult to credit the fact, but the section upon which it bases its wild attack on the Massey Government, and which it declares is "of itself sufficient to _ condemn the Bill and the autocratic Government that has impudently placed it before Parliament" was not introduced by the Massey Government at all. It will probably surprise those who do not know the depths of dishonesty and misrepresentation to which the NewZealand Times has sunk in its treatment of political questions, to learn that this "despotic," this "oppressive," this- "scandalous" proviso was introduced by the Ward Government and is now the law of the land. The Massey Government's Bill is a consolidating measure and the particular proviso singled out for such utter condemnation was made the law of the land by tho Ward Government five years l ago and has remained so ever since. So that there shall be no doubt on the point, we reproduce the sections as they appear in the Act of 1008, passed by tho Ward Government, and the Bill just introduced by the Massey Government: Till! act or 1908 the bill of 1913. NOW THE LAW OP Olauso 134, Sub-sec-THE LAND. lion 2: Every ponson Clause 6, Sub-sec- who makes any gift tion 2: Every person of money or other v;ho makes any gift valuablo thing to or Of money or other for tho benefit of valuable thing to or any uerson who le a for the benefit of party to any unlawany person who ls a tul striko or lockparty to any unlaw-' out, or to or for the ful strike or lock- benefit of any inout, or to or for the dustrial ■union, inbonefit of any in- dustrial association, dustrial .'union, in- or other society of dustrial association, which any such pertrado union, or eon is a. member, other society or as- and which is a. sociation of which party to any such a.ny such person is strike or lock-out, a member shall be shall bo deemed to deemed to havo aid- liavo aided or ed or abetted the abetted tho Rtrilqd Btriko or lock-out or lock-out within within tho meaning tho meaning of this of this section, un- section, unless he less lie proves that proves t.hnt ho so he so acted without noted without tho tho intent of aiding Intent of aiding or or abettintr tho abetting tho strike strike or lock-out. or lock-out.

Further comment in face of such facts is not called for, although it will be seen that even in quoting the effect of this sub-section the local anti-Reform journal has dishonestly endeavoured to make it appear that the restrictions and penalties relate to trades unions and strikes only, whereas they apply eaually to Employers' Associations and lock-outs. The New Zealand Times in charging the Massey Government with introducing the proposal and in attacking them for so doing, no doubt hoped to influence the Labour vote in favour of Sir Joseph Ward. It was quite in keeping with the stupidity shown by_ that journal that it should have imagined l that the Labour party would be ignorant of the fact that it was Sir Joseph Ward himself who was responsible for the clause. It might have spared itself this particular act' of dishonesty. Might we add, to avoid any misunderstanding on the point, that we do not wish in any way to convey the idea that the Ward Government was blameworthy for introducing the clause in question. Quito tho reverse. It was a very necessary clause in the public interest.