The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1927. LABOUR’S OPPORTUNITY.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 June 1927, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1927. LABOUR’S OPPORTUNITY.

The discussion of the Trade Union Bill is dragging its weary course through committee, and remarks a writer in the Auckland Star, the representatives of Labour are stiill exhibiting their inability to grasp the opportunities that Fortune lias put in their way. The “Spectator,” which, it is needless to say, is by no means well disposed towards the Conservative .Ministry, has pointed out with a. great deal of force that Mr dynes, acting as Leader of the Opposition, ought frankly to have admitted that the main principles of the Bill are indisputably sound. To make general strikes illegal, to prevent oppressive intimidation, to prohibit compulsory levies for political objects, and to insist that civil servants shall give their undivided allegiance to the State —these are all purposes in which an intelligent and sane democracy ought to acquiesce. There is, of course ample excuse for amending the Bill in such a way as to prevent injury to Labour, and to the unions in particular, through strained interpretation of an ill-drafted law. But Labour, in place of pointing out that there is much in the Bill, which might affect the workers detrimentally in ways never contemplated by the Government. has, in the words of the “Spectator,” adopted the foolish and inexcusable policy of substituting for argument “irrelevant interruption and personal abuse.’ 1 The general impression produced by these unfortunate proceedings is to jbe effect thnt'

the Labour party has a very inadequate conception of the dignity (J Parliament and of its own p litieal responsibilities. Unfortunately these defects have been displayed by nearly all the opponents of the Bill. In a pamphlet dealing witli this measure. Professor Ramsay Aluir. as an enthusiastic Liberal, endeavours to show that practically every word of the Bill is unnecessary or unjust or danger ms. Yet he admits most of (lie arguments in favour of the principles on which the Bill is I -sed. For instance, as regards section 3, which deals with picketing. he admits that ti 1i- right has been much abused in the past. “Mobs with violent words, and sometimes With violent deeds, visit the houses of workmen who have refused to take part in a strike, put the workmen themselves, and sometimes their wives and children, in fear of their lives, and generally exercise a. kind el terrorism which is often extremely effect i\ e.’ Is not this 1111 injustice which demands a remedy 'f Instead of answering tin's question. Professor Muir tries to show that the language of the Bill is ambiguous, and that it might lead to inconsistent and even absurd results; while the Labour members were content to reiterate that if the right of “picketing” were surrendered there woo'd bo no possible .way left to make a. strike effective. One of the most interesting and impressive contributions to the debate was made by Mr Spencer, who was expelled from the Labour party for closing the miners’ strike in Nottingham without the consent of the Miners’ Federation. “Ostracised and vilified,” he has had ample experience of |what “peaceful” persuasion means in Labour circles, and his appeal against the efforts of the Labour party to legalise intimidation and coercion, Was effective in the extreme. The trouble is that the Labour party will not he induced to confess officially that it is ever in the wrong. Yet the “Nation” strongly sympathetic as it is toward Labour, in criticising this Bill, admitted that the existing Trade Disputes Act, which Mr Baldwin is trying to improve “offends the sense of propriety of every lawyer,” and contains clauses which are “in the sharpest possible conflict with tlie general principles of law.” But when this grave question conics before Parliament some of Labour's chosen representatives apparently think that they discharge their responsibilities sufficiently l>v stamping, cat-calling ami terming Air Baldwin a liar. Abuse is not argument. hence there is an absence < f effective criticism to this very important measure.