The Dominion FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1926. TWO KINDS OF ARBITRATION

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 47, 19 November 1926, Page 10

The Dominion FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1926. TWO KINDS OF ARBITRATION

Permission has been given a private member ot the British House of Commons to introduce a Bill to prevent strikes and lockouts until preliminary arbitration has been resorted to befoic a proper Court. The proposal, which presumably is the natural sequel of the coal strike just ended, raises an involuntary smile. The author of the Bill is evidently unfamiliar with, the experience of Australia and New Zealand with similar legislation. has been. demonstrated over and over again that anti-strike legislation does not prevent strikes, though it may lessen their number. In the case of Australia, it may be doubted whether even the latter bene Human aC nat U ure is curiously inconsistent. Organised labour, through its political representatives, does not hesitate to condemn international war. It is frankly of opinion that the nations should settle their disputes by arbitration and honour then conti acts. That is as it should be. But it is a different matter when trouble brews in industry. Here a militant union does not hesitate to engage in a strike war if its leaders consider the circumstances favourable for brandishing the bludgeon. ■ . . .. • , Now there is no difference in principle between international and industrial arbitration. The object of each is to avoid war. If a nation dishonours its contract there is promptly, and yeiy properly, an outcry of indignation, in which Labour joins. If a trade union does the same thing, that is another story. If the inconsistency weic less serious it would be amusing. But it is not at all amusing. The moral aspect of the thing has to be consideied. The average individual who thinks about the matter at all endorses the principle of international arbitration because he instinctively knows that it is better for all concerned than resort to war He realises that war is destructive and costly, and that sooner * or later he will suffer, either directly or indirectly. The inconveniences and penalties of industrial war are precisely the same m character. A strike brings poverty and misery; it penalises not only the participants but others as well. Whichever side wins, both sides inevitably must pay their share of the cost. The British coal strike has cost the nation enormous losses. It must have bankrupted the Miners’ Federation, and must also have so crippled the resources of the industry itself, besides bringing hardship and loss to many thousands in other occupations. Yet Labour leaders of the brand ot Mr. A. J. Cook, the miners secretary, prefer the strike to arbitration! One of the arguments in favour of international arbitration, apart from the higher ethic, is that it pays. Is the same argument for industrial arbitration not equally potent? Recent statistics have revealed a drop in -the wealth per capita of the Australian population. One of the contributory causes is stated to be decreased production. A close analysis would probably reveal also the wastage caused by strikes. Even now. in this country we are faced with the prospect of a strike in.connection with the meat freezing industry, which may do great injury to the whole community as well as to those immediately concerned. To advocate international arbitration and at the same time oppose industrial arbitration is not only , bad logic, but also a manifestation of perverted civic morality. It is as much as to say. that while it is inhuman to point a gun at a foreigner, there is no inhumanity in doing it at a fellow-citizen. This. sounds absurd, but it is.precisely this kind of absurdity which the British miners leadeis have been practising on the public for the last.six months.