The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1890. CHRISTCHURCH CHAMPION BOYCOTTERS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2104, 27 September 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1890. CHRISTCHURCH CHAMPION BOYCOTTERS.

In times gone by disputes were generally settled by the arbitrament of the sword, now it would appear as if the boycott were going to be employed as the final arbiter. Since the commencement of the labor dispute we have heard a great deal about the boycott, but apparently it has been practised for some time in our midst without many knowing anything about it. According to the Christchurch papers of last Thursday the grocers of Christchurch in May 1889 came to the conclusion that competition was destroying their trade, and asked the merchants not to supply with goods any retail grocer who ticketed or advertised prices. The merchants agreed to this, and very soon grocers who persisted in advertising prices found no one would sell goods t© them. The Grocers’ Association also requested the merchants to boycott the Farmers’ Co-operative Association, but the merchants refused to do so. A Working Men’s Co-operative Society started, and at the request of the Grocers’ Association, the merchants boycotted it. Here is a solid fact worth thinking over. The merchants refused to boycott the Farmers’ Co-operative store, but did not hesitate to boycott the Working Men’s Co-operative store. This is very suggestive. The boycotting went on till Messrs Wardell Bros., decided to open a branch store in Dunedin, where they began to ticket their goods. A similar boycotting institution existed in that city, for the Dunedin Grocers’ Association requested the Christchurch merchants not to supply Wardell Bros, with goods and the merchants complied. Wardell Bros, reported the matter to the Chamber of Commerce as fallows;—

“ Having received official intimation that the wholesale grocers of Christchurch have instituted a beycott against us, we would thank you for an expression of opinion as to whether your Chamber considers, the practice of boycotting to be legal, justifiable; or conducive to the interests of fair trade.”

The Chamber of Commerce, which p£ course consisted principally of the merchants, decided there had been no boycotting, but subsequently gave way and supplied Wardell Bros, with goods. The result is that several Christchurch merchants are now 'undergoing the boycott, and that JT; Edwards, B.ennett and Co. Messrs . - u gfcarfc ?efcail sfcoreg of have decidea ''''bristchurch and their own, The s jj. aQ( j Dunedin grocers have affiliait-i.' so have the merchants, and when Messrs Wardell Bros, took 100 gold sovereigns to the several merchants to buy sugar, they would not sell one pound of it to them.

This is not the only branch of industry in which the boycott has been put into practise. The Millers’ A ssociation has in a similar way boycotted bakers who sold bread at a price lower than that fixed by the Bakers Association, and very probably the system is adopted more generally than the public is aware of. In our opinion to apply the boycott in this or any other way is tyrannical but

necessary. For several years trade has been ruined by the fearful way in which it has been cut up. Healthy competition is good, but there has crept into our. commercial system a class of competitors who are demoralising trade. 1 hese are the small traders who start without much capital, sell cheap in order to secure customers, and then become insolvent. Practically they get their goods for nothing, sell under trade prices, pay a few shillings in the pound and start again. It is obviously impossible for honest traders to pay 20s in the pound and compete with these. We certainly think, that trade conducted on such principles is detrimental to our social well-being and ought to be put down. This can best be done by associations such as those we have referred to, and for that reason we have nothing to say against them.

There is one thing, however, to which we disire to point. Some of these very merchants who have thus been putting the boycott into practise have been loudest in their denunciations of the conduct of unionists in the present strike, Slow on what grounds can these gentlemen denounce the unionists ? Have the unionists ever interfered with the liberty of subject more than these champion boyeotters have done. The grocers, merchants, flour-millers, bakers, and so on, in order to make their own position logical and unassailable ought to join hands with the labor unions, to compel the XJnien Company to end the present strike. They have not done so, however, and consequently it does not appear to us that the State can continue to look complacently on, and allow this fracticidal warfare to ruin the colony. Parliament must stop this sort of thing by establishing a court of conciliation, where both trade and labor disputes will be heard and settled.; We cannot allow this “ Kilkenny Cats ” warfare to go on, it affects us all, and it must be put aa end to as soon as possible.