The Daily News. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20. THE OSBORNE JUDGMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 138, 20 September 1910, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20. THE OSBORNE JUDGMENT.

The cables have been pretty full of late with matter relating to the Osborne judgment, which seems to have caused a violent agitation amongst the trades unions of the Old Country The facts of the case are simple. A rule of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants provided that members should subscribe la per year for the purpose of providing for the representation of railway men in the House of Commons. The rule also required that the candidate should sign and accept the conditions of the Labor party, and be subject to their whip. The rules further provided: "Should a candidate be elected, >he shall be paid a salary of* £250 a year, and third-class return fare to his constituency, so long as he remains a member of Parliament." An action was commenced to obtain a declaration from the court that the rule requiring payment of Is per member per year for Parliamentary representation was invalid. The Court of Appeal held that the definition of a trade union in the Act of 1'876 was a limiting and restrictive definition; and that it was not competent to a trade union either originally to insert in its objects, or by amendments to add to its objects, something so wholly distinct from the objects contemplated by the Trade Union Acts as a provision to secure Parliamentary nrepresentation. It is necessary to add that by statutory definition the term "trade union" means "any combination, whether temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations between workmen and employers, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, whether euch combination: would or would not, if this Act had not been passed, ha/ve 'been deemed to have been an unlawful combination by reason of some one ox more of its purposes being in restraint of trade.' The decision of the Court of Appeal, which was sustained by the House of Lords, took the case on high grounds of public policy. The Master of the Rolls, Sir H. Cozens-Hardy, said: "Trade unions comprise members of every shade of political Opinions, and I cannot think it was the intention of the Legislature that it should; be competent to a majority of the members to compel a minority support by their votes, still less by their subscriptions, political opinions which they may abhor, under penalty not only of being expelled from the union, and thusi losing all chances of benefit, but also the risk, and in some cases the very serious risk, of not being able to find employment in their trade in consequence of the refusal of trade union members to work with non-union members." And Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton said: "The object of the Parliamentary fund is to procure memibers of Parliament who shall be bound to vote in a prescribed manner, and it is in consideration of their undertaking so to vote that the funds of the society are to be expended in procuring their election and in supporting them in Parliament. Any such agreement' is, in my opinion, void as against public policy. The reason why such an agreement would be contrary to public policy is that the position , of a representative is that of a man who has accepted a trust towards the public, and that any contract, whether for valuable consideration or otherwise, which binds him to exercise that trust in any way other than on each occasion he conscientiously feels to be best in the public interest, is illegal and void. This , deepseated principle of 'law is the basis of the illegality at common law of bribery at Parliamentary elections, for the power of voting for a representative is also a trust towards the public." The, House of Lords treated the case rather from a legal than a constitutional point of view. ' Lord Halsbury spoke of trade unions as companies incorporated by statute. On the same lines Lord Macnagihten stated the broad and general principle thus: "Companies incorporated by statute for special purposes, and societies, whether incorporated or not, which owe their constitution and their status to' an Act of Parliament, having their objects "and powers defined thereby, cannot apply their funds to any purpose foreign to the purposes for which they were established, or embark in any undertaking in which' they were not intended by Parliament to be concerned." Lord James laid stress on the fact that one of the rules of the union would bind a member of Parliament to answer the whip of the Labor party. And Lord Shaw of Dumferline, on the other hand, affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal on the constitutional ground that certain rules of the, appellants were fundamentally illegal, being in violation to that sound public policy which is essential to the working of representative government. The judgment has been compared with the decision in the Taff Vale case. But its effect is not the 'same. The Taff Vale case affected the rights of every individual member of the trades unions, and seriously crippled the strike as an effective instrument of industrial war. There had been a strike on the Taff Vale Railway, and it was the time-honored and (as the strikers imagined) legal right of exercised by them which led to this litigation. The • railway company applied for an injunction to prevent the union from "picketing," and after the matter had gone both 1 to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords it was decided that a trade union 1 is a corporate body, and as such suable at law, and liable in damages for illegal . acts committed toy its officials. The com--1 pany thereupon sued the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, obtained a verdict, which to all intents made "picketing" illegal, and recovered from the Society the large sum of £23,000 damages and costs. Against the effects of

this verdict the trade unions, through their Parliamentary representatives, appealed: and in the early days of the Campbell-Bannerman Government the then Attorney-General introduced his famous Trades Disputes Bill. This was carried in the teeth of the strong opposition, not only of the Unionists, but against the judgment of several members of the Government and of Sir J. Walton himself, who was forced by the Labor party to amend his Bill in harmony with their desires. What this Bill did—the Lords passed it without aemndment—was to make legal the right of "peaceful persuasion," to exempt trade union funds from liability for the unauthorised acts of individual members, and to protect them against injunctions. The Osborne decision but restricts members of trades unions in the matter of subscribing funds for the support of their Parliamentary members. It has been shown that to rely upon voluntary subscriptions for Parliamentary candidates is to rely upon a broken reed. This means that Labor representation must suffer. The judgment, however, is a sound one, and it is unlikely that it will be reversed by legislative action. Labor members themselves do not appear to be at one over the judgment. Some of them openly declare that they should not be compelled to contribute out of their funds towards the furtherance of political doctrines in which they do not believe. The solution of the whole trouble is to be found in paying members of Parliament as we do in this country and in other colonies. Trades unions should concentrate upon this aim, and judging from the recent declaration of the Unionists and their newspapers it is ulikely that very much oposition will be met with in' gaining what is not a concession but a right.