SLAUGHTERMEN'S STRIKE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 57, 9 March 1907, Page 2

SLAUGHTERMEN'S STRIKE

A L'CKLAND MUX'S DKMAXiJS. l'or Press Association. Auckland, iMarcli 8. As a result of a nut-ling of flic new-ly-i'nrincil Auckland Slaughtermen's I "imi, a loj» was yes'Lerday forwarded to llm Provincial Master Butchers' Ahsoeiiit .'on and several by butcherin'' establishments in Auckland with a request that an answer lie jjiven liy .") o'clock to-mojinw avcniiiK. Del'ais are wifKi'ld, hut it is genui'ally understood tlrat iliu li'.en ilenian.l to lie placed on the same fooling as southern employees ill the iim'llcr of rates of j««y anil hours of labor. It is understiiod in till! event of Ihe men ceasing work, they will make, arrangcmcnt-i the employers to maintain the meat supply for domestic use.

POSITION IN SOUTHLAND. ■lsvKßCAitom., Marck S The position as regards tlie strike is soinc.viiut reversed locally. Recently there were sheep ami no men, now there are men and no sheep. At Mataura a full board of U butchers is available, ami it is expected to start on Saturday. Work would have been started to-day if sheep had been available. At VVallaeetown butchers arc being engaged. The position at Ocean Beach is unchanged. Seven of the Mataura men are ex-strikers. The slaughtermen hold a meeting to-morrow tor the purpose, it is said, of considering another oiler by the companies. The companies say nothing about a new offer, and state that they nb:d j by the original proposals.

STKJKKKS KKFUSE TO PAY KINKS. MATTICR TO UK CONSJDKIIUD BY CABINET. IXTEUVJI'AV WITH AT'J'OKXKYGKNEIiAL. PAILUBE TO I'AV JXVOIAKS IMPIHSONMUNT. "Wellington, March 8. Cabinet is to meet to-morrow to consider the position regarding the refusal of the Canterbury slaughterman to pay the fines imposed on them by the Arbitration Court.

Interviewed on the subject to-night by a " Times " reporter, the Hon. Dr, Fiudlay, Attorney-General, said : " In regard to tlie question whether the machinery of the Act is defective as to permit its violation with impunity, upon this test I claim to speak with more certainty and authority than with regard to the first test, because this is entirely a question of law. It narrows itself down to this, ' Can those who have struck and have been lined, be imprisoned for non-payment of their lines i' This question can be answered without the slightest hesitation in the affirmative. The law is per* fectly clear, and it stands thus— Sec'.ion 15 of the Act of 1905, under which the men were lined, declares that those who strike shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine by sectiou 101. Where a fine is imposed it is enforced by means of a certificate given under the hand of the Clerk, and the seal of the Court, which when tiled in any Court having civil jurisdiction shall thereupon be enforeable in all respects as a final judgment of such Court. Therefore a certificate in respect of the lines which have been imposed may be filed in the Supreme Court. What penalty may thereupon be enforced against the defendants' A line, it will bo remembered, is not a debt within the meaning of the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, for default in payment of any penalty or of any sum in the nature of a penally is expressly excepted from that Act". The protection, then, of the imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act is not given to the defendants here. In Eng laud under the same circumstances they would! on non-payment, be arrested under what lawyers call "the (si sa" in New Zealand under the Supremo Court code of 18S2, The procedure is by way of a motion for attachment, on the filing and service of which the defendant had an opportunity of showing that he has paid the ne, an dif he lias not done so, he may be sent to prison for a period not exceeding one year. The Imitation of one year is contained in the last paragraph of the third section of the imprisonment for Debt Act, therefore the powers of the law in punishing a man convicted of taking a part in a strike and failing to pay the fine imposed upon him, are exceedingly wide, and f know of no rule which would prevent the Supreme Court from committing a man, whose line is not paid, to prison for such term less than a year as the Court may think fit. lam informed that the tines already imposed amount to over £7OO, and it is quite clear that if each man who joins in the strike may be lined £lO, as is allowed by the Act, and in default of payment" may lie sent to gaol for a substantial term, dine, and if he has not done so, he mav tliey would not treat lightly. Can it I hen belaid tha;t|in,ithis,Second (tost of the enforcibility of its awards, the Act lias broken down? Surely, if my yiew of the law is right, this question can only bo answered one way. lam no; the Minister for Labor, "and in this connection my duty mainly lies j„ ;u |. vising the Government, the Minister for Labor and the Acting-Premier have both spoken, and their determination to enforce the law has already been I unequivocally declared.