LABOR’S NEEDS

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2143, 27 July 1907, Page 4

LABOR’S NEEDS

SPEECH BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

The speech of the Attorney-General on the Address-in-Reply in the Legislative Council on July 17th was almost entirely devoted to labor matters.

After complimenting the Hon. J. Rigg and J. Barr on their contribution; to the debate under this particulai head, Dr. Findlay said he would approach tlie matter fro-m an academic point of view. He was not al l aid of being charged with academ-icism-—one had to recognise the broad principles underlying the question. Ho emphasised the point that the rights of the individual had to rank secondary to those of the community an-1 the State. The latter were paramount. AVe would never have a true coir mon wealth "of labor until we looked beyond labor as a commodity and took into their account the interests of the workers themselves. No employer should be allowed to engage help at a rate of pay that would destroy the moral well-being of the worker. In trade disputes there were

hod two parties but three —the master the men, and the State. When til*. State stepped in it was not taking sides; it merely desired to protect its own interests. Mr. Rigg had sai.l it was without precedent that men should bo imprisoned for strik-

Mr. Rigg: I said New Zealand was the oidv country where striking was made an offence. Dr. Findlay said the illustration he proposed to ("quote would meet Mr Rigg’s contention in every way. An Act passed in England in 1875 governing the conduct of msp employed in the municipal gas works gave power to imprison where they interfered with tho community or tho interests of the community. The rights of the community were the only leasojj for giving such power. He did not uphold tho putting of men in gaol because they refused to work. Mr. Rigg had said he could not suggest a means for enforcing awards. In lii'3 (tho speaker’s) opinion there was a way out of tbe difficulty without resorting to imprisonment, and he believed his view would be accepted when the time came to state it, and at the same timo if it was absolutely necessary to enforce obedience, oven by imprisonment, it should he done where the interests of the community demanded such a course. Obedience was so essential that it should bo enforced. Air. Rigg: Can you enforce it?

Dr. Findlay replied that obedience could be enforced. England had done it with tho Riot Act. He admired the labpr man who stood out a.id said strikes should cease. Men should not be compelled to work until the full measure of justice had been done them, but when they had

received that, obedience should he looked for and expected. The Arbitration Act had its faults, but what Ac; of an experimental nature had not ? The delays of tho past, so far as the court" was concerned, would disappear, and with them a great deal of the dissatisfaction which existe 1. And what was to be tho basis of an award? Somebody suggested

profit sharing. Then what of losses? There was no other basis than that suggested b- Mr. Barr: a standard which would allow the worker to live in decency and comfort. The living wage was the onlv wage that could be fixed as a minimum. But here again ho showed that difficulties arose. A living wage for a single irui l was not a living wage for a married man with a family. Some distinction—bo rli yi not know where or how—would have to be mafic. He believed a solution of this difficulty would yet be arrived at. Ho mentioned it to show the complexity of thi whole question. People bad suggested that young children should not bo allowed to sell newspapers in the streets. Who were these children? Often the children of the struggling journeyman or laborer with “broken” time. Care had to be taken that nothing that would press undulv or unjustlv on anybody would lie agreed to. The Labor legislation of this country had done more to quicken the humanitarian instincts of its inhabitants than anything else. They did not want to raise class distinctions, but to work out a scheme that would be for the benefit of the great mass of the people. The Hon. George McLean was pleased that the Attorney-General had stated his views on the labor question. Where awards were made they should be obeyed. The difficulty he-saw about the labor legislation

was thi» —That it.was driving everything into large companies and corporations and. killing the “little” man.

In replying to the speeches made during the debate the Hon. J. T.. Paul (who moved the Address-in-Roply) reiterated his objection to and disapproval of “strikes” and craved for the retention of the principle of arbitration.