THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2050, 10 April 1907, Page 4

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Porliaps the least satisfactory feature in connection with the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act is tlio fact that the Con rt is so Frequently attacked by tho workers for its alleged want of impartiality. This is mi entirely new development in our civic life. The integrity of tho Supreme Court Bench has been tho subject of just prido in every English speaking community. The decisions of tho Judges have been loyally accepted by litigants, and while those who were unsuccessful might hold that the Court was mistaken in its view of the law, and although this might oven be shown to bo tho case upon appeal, no whisper against tho probity and impartiality of tho Judges was ever hoard. Sinco tho establishment ol tho Arbitration Court in New Zealand this admirable tradition lias boon set at nought. A decision which was adverse to the workers’ claims has been the signal on more than one occasion for virulent attacks on the Judge by accredited representatives of tho Labor party, and the most flagrant charges of partiality have been flung broadcast. This is tho more indefensible when it is remembered that the Judges who have hitherto presided ovor tho Arbitration Court arc taken from precisely the same class as the Supreme Court Judges, and until quite recently those who had actually bad Supreme Court experience wore appointed to do the work. It is inconceivable that such Judges would at onco depart from the highest. traditions of their order,' and that men who had exhibited the strictest impartiality in tlic trial of criminal cases and civil actions should suddenly become biased and unfair when deciding labor disputes. On the contrary, every observer who is himself impartial must see that in tho Arbitration Court tho Judges have shown the keenest anxiety to do what is right. This being so, we feel compelled to deprecate in the strongest manner the covert insinuations and open charges which were undo against the Judges during tlic discussion at the Trades and Labor Council’s meeting with reference to the appointment of a labor representative to the Court. So far as the Council is concerned, it was decided not to re-appoint tho present representative, Mr Slater, a majority of votes being cast in favor of Mr .T. A. McCullough. The matter, liowover, has still to be submitted to the individual unions before it is decided whether Mr Slater or Mr McCullough is to bo the chosen representative for the future. The main ground of objection against AllSlater seemed to be that lie was not sufficiently strenuous and demonstrative in Court. Those who defended him implied that it was the partiality of the Judge and not the alleged inactivity of the Labor representative which was to blame when tho decisions wont against tho Unions. It is, of course, quite open to the workers to change their representative in the Court. They make a great mistake, however, if they think that what is wanted on the part of their representative is the blustering manner of a police court attorney or an Old Bailey advocate. The two lay representatives associated with the Judge are really in the nature of assessors,each charged with the duty of seeing that due weight is given to the views of his own side, while it is left to the Judge to strike the balance. Mr Slater lias always seemed to us a thoughtful, intelligent man, keenly alive to the interests of those be is called upon to represent, and liis advocacy of their views has not lost anything in effectiveness from having been marked by courtesy and self-restraint. The great lesson which the workers have yet to learn is that the arbitration system can never be permanently successful unless it is supported by the loyalty of both parties to the disputes—loyalty to the Act, loyalty to tho Court and respect for its decision.—Christchurch Press.