The Daily News TUESDAY, JULY 21. PREVENTING STRIKES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 180, 21 July 1908, Page 2

The Daily News TUESDAY, JULY 21. PREVENTING STRIKES.

Every reasonable mind in the country to which has come the reported speech of the Hon. Dr. Findlay on the Arbitration Act, delivered in the .Legislative Council, must heartily concur with every word that fell from the lion, gentleman. He lias pointed out that prior to 181)4 sweating, as shown by the report of a commission in 181)0, was rampant in New Zealand; now it does not exist. That in five great strikes labour was hope- . lessly beaten. The legislation passed was designed to all'ord relief from a miserable state of things, and he claimed that in a measure it has succeeded. He re-

'erred to the attitude of employers at his time, pointed to their stubborn refusals to hold a conference, and declare']

that labour secured its first great victory when it secured the right of m enforced conference. .State compulsion was responsible for this. State compulsion was the refuge and the hope of practically beaten labour. After a truly eloquent reference to his lion, colleague, Ml'. Millar, and his devotion to the cause of labor, Dr. Findlay demanded, Was labor, or a section of it, going to pay its old market price for wisdom, good counsel, and devotion —the market price of ignominy, ingratitude, and distrust? If so, then so much the worse

for labour. Mr. Millar, mindful of what preceded 1894, desired to keep the Act, but he could not do so if it was to be broken with ostentatious contempt whenever it suited the workers. The answer is to be found in the Btrikcs which have recently occurred. It is aye, find it might he added that it is the answer often given by the democracy to those who strive to serve theui faithfully and devotedly.

After pointing out that the price to bo paid for benefits sought was the yieldjug of corresponding benefits —" the burden of equality and obligation"—Dr. Findlay asks, Was labor prepared to accept these? If not, the Prime Minister and Mr. Millar were prepared to let the Act go. It was idle to talk of a continuance of tlie Act on any other term--. Did the workers only want so much of the Act as suited them, or an Act effectively binding on both sides? It is to be presumed that labor, through its unions and councils, has carefully considered the whole question and' again the answer is to be found in the strikes which have occurred. Abolition, says Dr. Findlay, would be easy; it would

rid the Government of many perplexities, and enable it to escape the blame simply because existing legislation did not prevent them. The Government would no longer lie the Patsy Bolliver responsible for all; it would no longerlie held responsible for the pranks of both worker and employer. Alioiition could be accomplished by one clause, but what did abolition mean?

Whilst, as has been said, every sensib'e person must concur in all this, the essence of the present trouble really litw with a matter which the Hon. the At-torney-General has never touched. "Look here, you fat fellow, Mr. Capital, and look here also, you lean fellow, Mr. Labor,cried the State, "we have put up with vour wretched tomfoolery long enough, 'whereby industry has been paralysed, doubt and fear brought into thousands of innocent homes, loss and inconvenience entailed in many directions, and we shall not continue to submit to it. We shall establish Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration with judges, assessors, and all the requisite paraphernalia. Into these courts the pair of you must bring your mutual selfishness, your narrow-minded jealousies, your miserable disputations, and the courts to the best of their ability will decide what is fair to all parties. The decisions of the Arbitration Court shall lie law, ami you must respect and obey the law. We are armed with drastic powers, and whoever fails to respect and obey, we shall smile and smite severely. They shall be punished." This was the position assumed bv the State—the position represented by the Arbitration Act. Strikes have occurred, the law has been flouted and despised, and it is now asked, Wko has been smitten severely?

The Blackball strike took place several liontlis ago, and to-day an appeal is In ing heard against the line imposed. On llii> failure to recover from the union whi't action worthy of notice was taken against the striking workmen individually '( AVlien the tramway operators struck in Auckland did not the Secretary for Laiwr—suspected of being an out-and-out Socialist —hurry to Auckland endeavor to patch up the trouble, instead of doing his best to enforce the law? What action lias been taken against the bakers who went out on strike in, Wellington? Then there are the sympathisers and practical supporters of the strikers—has the Sta'.e lifted a linger against them? Where can anyone look for a manifestation c f the energy and determination that was anticipated in the suppression of strikes? Lias not the Minister laid himself open to a suspicion that his plainly-avowed sympathy for Labor has rendered him weak? And when there has been ever at his elbow one wliose sympathies are with the Socialists—the Socialists whose policy it is to stir up strife—what was to be expected but that when trouble came and it was necessary for Labor to be ]»enalised there should be lull fheartedncss, a disposition to east the burden upon an assumed faultiuess in the Act, and shuffling delays? It is JMt the Act; it is the administration of it that has failed.