THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1894. BENMORE SHEARING DISPUTE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2723, 11 October 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1894. BENMORE SHEARING DISPUTE.

Seldom has a Minister of the Crown assumed so bold and decisive an attitude as that taken up by the Honorable Mr Seddon towards the manager of the Benmore station. It savors a good deal of the bold and dashing foreign policy of one of England's greatest statesmen—Lord Palmerston. Still, it cannot be said that Mr Seddon has acted without something like a precedent. When Lord Randolph Churchill became Chief Secretary for Ireland "he employed Sir Redvers -Buller to bring pressure to bear on Irish landlords to refrain from carrying out evictions, and intimated that when any undue harshness was indulged iu police protection would not be given. The Right Honorable John Morley also, when he first took up a similar position in Ireland, refused to give evicting landlords police protection, but, if we remember rightly, he was compelled to do so by a Supreme Court mandamus. Mr Seddon's action is practically on all fours with this. Mr Middleton's conduct savors much of the evicting Irish laudlords. The incidents which have led to this denotement are doubtless fresh in the minds of most people. Last year, as usual, Mr Middleton, manager of the Benmore station, employed shearers, and made them sign an agreement under which he seems to have had absolute sway in all thingß. As the work proceeded the shearers objected to work on the ground that the sheep were wet. Mr Middleton, being sole judge, decided that they were dry, and ordered them to go oh. This led to a strike; the men refused to shear, and others were put in their place. The shearers had earned £3OO before they struck, and this Mr Middleton refused to pay them. The shearers sued him for the money, but the court decided in his favor, and he has kept the £3OO from the shearers ever since. He has now arranged with a blackleg shearer from Oamaru, who has gone blacklegging to Australia, to bring back with him Australian blackl3gß to shear his sheep, and it is for these he claims police protection. It is certainly against tradition and usage to refuse it to him, bat we are changing many of our old customs. Hitherto men in Mr Middleton's position could do as they liked. The law was entirely on their side, and there was no consideration for shearers. Things are changing, however, and Mr Middleton and his class may as well open their eyes to the realities by which they are surrounded. They are no longer masters; the day for dictating, browbeating, and domineering is past, and if they are wise they will fall in with the altered conditions. Last year Mr Middleton defrauded his men of £300; this year he wants to spend that money in adding insult to injury by importing blackleg shearers. This is a needless display of arrogance, but probably the fact that he will not as of old have the law at his back may brin.jf him to his senses. Mr Seddon's masterful attitude will have a salutary effect, even if in the face of usage, it cannot be defended, because when it becomes known to men of the Middleton stamp that the law will not protect them, they will adopt a more conciliatory course in future tow ards their employees. Strictly speaking, Mr Middleton has a right to employ whoever he likes, and the law has a right to protect him and his workmen, but the question is; Is it wise to encourage him to do that which may lead to acts of violence by holding out promises of protection to him ? Hitherto our labor disputes have been conducted without recourse to violence, but if Mr Middleton introduces the disturbing element which is the cause of so much trouble in Australia the result may be serious. If Mr Middleton were encouraged in thus importing the rag-tag and bob-tail of the Australian shearers others may follow his example, and the country may be flooded with them. This may lead to deeds of violence and bloodshed such as has characterised Australian shearing, and from which this colony has hitherto been free. It is for this reason that Mr Seddon has refused protection with the view of nipping the evil in the bud. He has very bold step, but, we believe taken - ~* 'will iu the end outweigh its moral effeco . .. If New Zeaita apparent wrongfulness. : »*>nort land squatters were encouraged to x~. x Australian blacklegs in this way, no one knows what the result .may be. We know that the shearing disputes in Australia have led to bloodshed and murder, destruction of property by fire, the wrecking of trains and sea-going vessels, and many other crimes, and there is no reason why similar results might pot be produced under similar conditions in New Zealaud. Human nature is the same here as in Australia, and js likely to do in the one place what it. J haß done in the other. For this reason we are not prepared to condemn Mr Seddon's action, as we believe good will come of it.

CHEAP MONEY. The Cheap Money Bill of the Government has been destroyed in the Legislative Council. The Bill as it left the Lower House provided that advances could bo made on laud up to two-thirds its value, and that £SOOO could bo lent to one person. These are the two main provisions of the Bill, and the Council has altered thorn. By the Council's amendment £IOOO is the largest sum which can be lent to oue inau, and tho advances made on land cannot bo more than half its value. This minces the Bill to a farc-3. It chii do nn good to cither rich or poor. If tho £SOOO maximum S'lin to bo advanced had boon retained well-to-do landowners might heuetic by it, but when this 13 reduced to £IOOO, and the power to loud h restricted to one-half tho value, the Bill might as well bo withdrawn at once, for it would not be worth tho paper ou which it would be printed. Any one who needs only a mortgago of one-half tho value of his laud needs no State aid ; he can got choap money anywhere. But the man who requires two-thirds tho valuo is not so independent, und it is such men the Stu*e ought to assist. Tho cry that it is too risky to lend up to two-thirda the value on land is insane, senseless, idiotic. There can bo no possible risk at all, more especially as a sinking fund is provided to extinguish

the debt in the coarse of time. Under these circumstances the sinking fund would very soon amount to a good sum, and thus reduce the risk. But experience is dead against the contention that twothirds is not safe. From a report recently published in the Yorkshire Post we gather that Land Banks hare been in existence in Germany for the last4s years. There are over one thousand such institutions in the country, yet in all this time, and with all their enormous transactions, only £ll has been lost in bad debta. There are institutions in London for lending money on personal security only. The St. Paucras Self-help Soeiety has lent £BOOO to costermongers and railway servants during the last seven years, and seven shillings iB all the loss sustained in all that time. Let it be remembered that the costermongers and railway servants give no security at all; the money is advanced on the strength of the personal character of the borrower, and this is the result. Here in Now Zealand our farmers have some of the best land on the face of the earth to offer as security for the loan of money, yet the parrot cry is raised that it is not safe to assess it at two-thirds its present value. Those who decry the value of New Zealand property in this manner are certainly bad citizens, for the effect on the outside world cannot be good. When Londoners see that our Houses of Parliament do not think New Zealand land is worth two-thirds its present valuatiou what will they think'/ Our credit is good now; we stand on the highest pinnacle of the London mouey market, but what will the effect of this cry be i Must it not lower our credit 1 Yet any one who can think for on a moment must come to the conclusion that there is nothing in it. Supposing, for instance, that a sum equal to two-thirds the value were lent on land, and that the owner met with some misfortune which would disable him so that he could not pay the interest. "What then ? The land would fall into the hands of the State, but is not that what is wanted ? We are buying land at 20s in the £, but we will not lend 13s 4d in the £ on it for fear it would fall into our hands. Could anything be more ridiculous or nonsensical 1 Yet men who represent us iu Parliament cannot see this. As for the Legislative Council something must be done with it. It is an obstruction in ihe way of progress, and the best thiug that can be done is to deprive it of legislative functions altogether. Let it be a revising body to correct the mistakes of the Lower House; that is all that it is good for, and that is all that is wanted.