Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9337, 5 January 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, JANUARY 5,1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE trouble existing between the miners throughout the Dominion and the employers is another example of the results of the hasty methods of legislation in this country. Without considering the consequences of their action Ministers included in the new compensation Act miners’ complaint as one of the diseases which rendered employers liable to pay compensation. Lung affections of this description are slow in developing and, therefore, it is difficult to tell when they have their origin. For a long time they do not interfere with active work and it is quite possible for a miner who is suffering from the disease to he employed when apparently in the best of health and then to collapse in a short

time and throw the liability for compensation on an employer who has bad the services of the worker for only a brief period. So far as we are aware the workers in the mines made no claim for compensation for those suffering from miners’ complaint, and the employers naturally' had no desire to have their liabilities extended, but Parliament decided that the disease should bescheduled as one those included under the Act. The employers refuse to undertake responsibility which may involve very large expense to them, and, therefore, demand that the men should undergo a medical [examination with the understanding that those who fail to pass may contract out in the terms of the Act so as to free the employers from any liability. The situation at present is that the men refuse to be examned and the employers refuse to allow them to return to work until they produce a doctor’s certificate. There is nothing complicated about the position and if Sir Joseph Ward and other Ministers can refrain from meddling the matter will probably be settled easily enough. Unfortunately Sir Joseph likes to have a finger in every petty dispute in the country and this gives the workers an undue idea of the importance of their interests. No injustice is threatened to the miners who are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs, and can doubtless arrange a compromise until Parliament has time to reconsider the step taken. The position is not unlike that which would be created were all employers rendered liable to pay compensation to those of their employees who contracted consumption. Men or women with coughs or colds would have a poor chance of employment, and small shopkeepers might be ruined by claims for compensation from their assistants.

THE statement which appeared in the Waipawa paper that Sir Joseph Ward intends to promote Mr Dillon to the Upper House and that Mr McNab will contest the Hawke’s Bay seat on the retirement of Mr Dillon is interesting, if true. Sir Joseph seems to be in difficulties as to the choice of new members of Cabinet, otherwise there is no excuse for deferring the announcement of the new Ministers, and the return of Mr McNab would simplify matters very much. The contest between Sir William Russell and Mr McNab, supposing no other candidates came forward, would be an extremely interesting one, and though the strength of the Ward Party in Hawke’s Bay would secure the seat for the Ministry if would not ba a walk over, while a second defeat for Mr McNab would be a serious blow to the prestige of the party in power. On this ground we do not think that the suggested promotion of Mr Dillon will take place as Sir Joseph has not sufficient confidence in his popularity to risk an unnecessary appeal to the electors of Hawke’s Bay.