Rangitikei Advocate. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1908. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9067, 6 February 1908, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1908. EDITORIAL NOTES.

JUDGING from the complaints so frequently heard we believe that the present Ministry will have every reason to regret the clay they passed that curious law which, while placing irritating restrictions on betting at the same time gave their friends, the bookmakers, legal status. The fact that the bookmaker was thus favoured, and the further fact that more people are now forced to the racecourses if they want to bet, is not likely to win support for the Ministry from those who disapprove of gambling. On the other hand the wage earners, many of whom formerly found some additional zest to existence by speculating a few shillings in “Tattersall’s” or sending money to the racecourse, aud who are now prevented from doing either, are loud in their outcry. As one put it the other day, “There is now too much interference with personal liberty. If JC have £1 to spare I want to do as I like with it. ” We are not at present discussing the question of whether gambling should be suppressed, or whether it is possible to suppress it. In some respects, perhaps, the Act has done good, such as in the abolition of street betting. But that it will be the means of alienating a good deal of support from the party that promoted it there can be no doubt. In does not go far enough to please one side—indeed it affronts this by legalising the bookmakers’ occupation; and it goes too far in, interfering with the desires of the other'side, and cutting off what its members at least regarded as one of their pleasures, and chief excitement. These resent keenly such regulations as that which prevents publication of dividends after an event has been decided. But "if this Act brings about the downfall of the party who have so long held lucrative office, and given the people such weird and expensive legislation there will be a kind.of poetic justice in it. The cow and

the sheep have maintained them in office, and the horse will’kick them out of it.

WE observe that some of onr contemporaries are gravely discussing the question of whether a worker can claim a full Week’s wage if only a day’s work is done. It does not seem to strike them that if the law does permit this to be done then the law is tremendously unjust, and should be at .once amended. A grocer who attempted to enforce payment fox a dozen pounds,of sugar when only one pound was delivered, a contractor who charged for a mile of road-making when only a chain was done, or who charged for erecting two houses when only one was put up,|would be regarded as a rogue, and would certainly be laughed out of Court. Why then when a worker sells only one day ’s labour should he be entitled to claim payment for six? It, is true that his claim is apparently fortified by the fact that in nearly every trade employers are now compelled to pay full wages for holidays during which no work is done, and that business men gener- ; ally have'to pay six days’ wages for five and a half day’s work. But this is merely for the present the people have not awakened to the injury done when laziness is rewarded, and not because it is just politic to pay for that for which no value is received.

THE employers of the butter workers decline to give evidence before the Conciliation Board on account of Mr Collins sitting on the Board, and they accuse him of acting in the dual capacity of agitator and judge. The Ohaimran of the Board has therefore practical? threatened them with a fine if not appear at the adjourned sitting. - The clause of the Act on which he relies provides a penalty not exceeding £2O, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one mouth. The Labour legislation lias therefore brought the farmers into peril of fine or imprisonment. Assuming that their objection to Mr Collins is wellfounded, and he is certainly not unknown as a promoter of unionism, it follows that unless the farmers agree to abide by the decision of a bodv they believe to be biased against ‘them they 'may be made to suffer. Such a position as this is surely gintolerable in any country which claims to possess a free people. In any other country, except perhaps Russia, every care would be taken to avoid even the appearance of bias on the Bench, and the impartiality of every judicial body would be ensured. Is it possible that Ministers are afraid to arouse the hostility of the Socialists if they take [steps to secure the impartiality of the bodies which have to hear disputes in |the industrial world? If so, is it not time that Ministers themselves were removed from positions, the responsibilities of which they are afraid to incur?

IT is very satisfactory to note that there is every prospect of the shearers’ dispute being settled on terms which leave little to be dseired on either side. Left to themselves, without the intervention of agitators, tiie parties adopted the “give and take” policy with excellent results. Of course, in all such disputes, each side is apt to demand more than it expects to receive, and this appears"to liave been realised on this occasion. What were regarded by farmers as most dangerous clauses in v the demands were amicably adjusted, and nothing now remains but the final acceptance of the arrangement arrived at between the delegates, aud its ratification by the Conciliation Board. There will then, at least for a term, be industrial peace so far as the shearers and the wool-growers are directly concerned.