THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 102, 20 October 1911, Page 4

THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Mr. T. J. O'Regan. of Wellington, is a friend of tlie workers, because he has been one of them and knows all about their lot and disabilities.. He also knows something' about the working of our Arbitration Court, for he has at different time been associated with it in more than one capacity. Hence what he says about the working of our arbitration system is worth careful consideration, especially by those in sympathy with Uibor's aims. In the Wellington Times of Saturday, Mr. O'Rcgan has an article on the subject that is of particular interest at the moment. He utters some plain truths. He first of iill shows that wages in all occupations bear a certain proportion to a common standard, or. in other words, they tend to a general level. Accordingly, if wages in any one occupation were raised above that standard or level, an irresistible tendency would set in to attract laborers into the favored calling, but competition would soon restore the normal level. Let those who are fortunate enough to be the recipients of the higher wages form a union, and that body would necessarily have to become somewhat of a close corporation. I'ndcr preference to unionists this safeguard would be destroyed, and herein lies the weakness of preference. We are thus compelled to conclude that wages cannot he permanently raised in any »ne occupation unless the general level is itself raised. It is difficult to raise the level of a hay higher than that of the ocean, but raise the level of the ocean and the bays will soon rise also. Hearing Lliis central truth in mind, let us now imagine what would happen if the Court of Arbitration were to give an award as good as tin; claimants desired. Labor would, of course, be attracted lo the better-paid calling, and not even the most, stringent artificial restrictions would prevent the inevitable wages would ultimately fall again. Another certain result would be ihat workers on ail «ides would form unions in order to obtain awards, and the Court of Arbitration would soon find itself unable lo cope with Hie business thrust upon it. Kvcn as things are, the Court is kept fairly busy. What would be the position if all laborers became enrolled in unions to seek awards? The Court would be cru.-hed under the weight of its own burden! Xo doubt under such a state of things the Court would be a popular institution with unionists. Employers, on the other hand, and their newspaper friends, would maintain a continuous fusillade of invective against the Court. Thus it is not ilillicult to prove that it is impossible for that tribunal to avoid offending one or other of the parties. • lu-l now Mr. .lustice Jiiggins is a most popular man with Australian unionists. Read the newspapers, however, and you will find him very severely criticised—criticised in a manner incompatible with

I tin; dignity of tin' bench. It requires no ( I imagination to realise that such a state ] iof things cannot continue, hi mutters | of law a judge can discharge llio duties < of liis high otlice fearlessly, not only for I Hie reason that lie is surrounded with j proper legal safeguards, but because Hie I average citizen has himself neither opinions nor prejudices on questions appropriate to the law courts. The question of wages and hours of labor, however, are not matters of law, but of fact, upon which everyone is entitled to an opinion. Accordingly, Mr. O'Regan holds that not even the most Upright judge and eminent lawyer should be called upyn to adjudicate where matters of opinion and keen controversy are at issue. This brings Mr. O'Regan to another phase of the question. Much of the law under which we live, he points out, has been made, by judges. Historians have dealt altogether inadequately with the magnificient work which judges have done in a past age when they made law under the guise of interpretation. Such a function is not theirs in modem days, because Parliament was less important than it

is nowadays, the judges did work which, is for us to-day a precious and ill-appre-ciated heritage. Now, anyone who studies the history of judge-made law knows that a question ever present in the minds of judicial legislators was: Can the Court give an effective judgment? If the Court could not it refrained from exercising jurisdiction. The result is that the ''majesty of the law" became something more than a by-word. The judges, in other words, knew well that, if legislation is to be ellicient, it must not transgress its proper sphere. How much difficulty would society escape if legislators were guided by like principles to-day! The Arbitration Act is an illustration of the modern tendency to exceed the proper limits of legislation. Mr. O'Regan concludes: "It is only fair to the officers of the law, if not to the public, that legislators should consider carefullly whether or not their proposals will not drag the judiciary in the mire. Personally, I regard it as a foregone eonelusion that, no matter how the Arbitration Act is amended, it cannot succeed. Accordingly, while I yield to no man iu my sympathies with the claims of Labor, I am bound to add that a meed of sympathy is due to the tribunal that' is placed in an impossible position. Judges are certainly no sacrosanct, but it is highly desirable that they should not be exposed to the criticism which is the common lot of other public men."