THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1894. SHEARING DISPUTE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2752, 18 December 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1894. SHEARING DISPUTE.

The Benmore dispute took place over wet sheep. The shearers said the sheep were too wet to shear; the manager insisted that were not, and when the men refused to work he dismissed them. Under the rules of the shed anyone dismissed for any reason until the shearing had been finished was not entitled to receive any wages. The men having been dismissed for having refused to work, the manager took advantage of this rule, and refused to pay what they had earned, and in this way be defrauded them of over £3OO. The same game has been tried by the manager of Balmoral station, but he is not likely to repeat the experiment. He, too, dismissed bis shearers, and refused to pay what was due to them, believing, no doubt, that he would come off as successfully as the Benmore manager, but he is now a sadder and wiser man. The case was heard before Mr Beetham in Christchurch last Tuesday, and the evidence disclosed the following facts : The plaintiff, a shearer named Brennan, together with 19 others, agreed to shear 36,000 sheep at Balmoral station, but when he had shorn 325 sheep he was dismissed, with all the others, and now they all sued for the amount due to them, which was £3OO, exactly the amount the Benmore manager defrauded his shearers of.: The dispute which led to the dismissal arose out of the overbearing conduct of the shed manager. The custom on all stations is to cease work at 4 p.m. on Saturdays, but on the second Saturday the manager ordered the men to continue work. It appears that the order was given in such a peremptory manner to a few of the men that they were annoyed, and some of them refused to work, while the great majority of them did not know the reason they were told to clear out of the shed. Had the order been given iu a proper way the men would have continued the work until the sheep iu the yard had been shorn, but instead of that the manager treated them in a high-handed way. In giving judgment Mr Beetham said—- “ The men were certainly entitled to be paid for the sheep they had shorn. From the evidence it seemed to him that they were perfectly willing to work after four o’clock had they been asked in a proper way. If the shed manager bad used a little more taot, instead of losing his temper, the present dispute would not have arisen. He would give judgment for £2 Ss 9d for the sheep he had shorn and allow £7 damages with costs.’'

Now people are very ready to blame the shearers, but if the truth were known there are just as many faults on the one side as ou the other. Here we have the pronouncement, of a stipendiary magistrate, who certainly cannot be accused of being of the right color, condemning the manager as the whole cause of the dispute, out until this was published it was credited to the overbearing conduct of the shearers. Is it not possible that in many other instances managers have been as much, if not more, to blame than the men 'I We do not say that the manager forced the quarrel on the men purposely with the view of dismissing them, and thna J afra uding them of their wages, but anyonedesixiog ! a misrepresent facts, as jg frequently done with regard to shearers, pould say, that encouraged by the success of the Bewmhri) manager last year, the Balmoral manage* awed at getting his sheep shorn op the ch e a&.- ’-That we, however, do not believe, bijt theye is enough iu the transaction to show that the shearers are jngtified in refusing to sign rules under whmh they could be dismissed and defrauded of their wages in this way. The Benmore and Balmoral cases prove conclusively that it is absolutely necessary that shearers should ba protected against the (?f managers, who could thus dismiss them and defraud them of their wages. Mr Beetharn’s action will doubtless make them careful in future. The manager of Balmoral station, instead of geting his sheep shorn on the cheap, has bad to pay twice for shearing them, and that will have the effect of improving his tamper next year, and make him treat his men with greater civility.

THE UT COLOR. m c .r i i 'or ” is becoming The cry of the “ right co, ° nauseating. Oi.e cannot take 0,. un position paper, or lead an opposition Sj eec t, without finding the “ right color ” ci argo reiterated. Now a few facts ought to settle this poi.it. Tlio Commissioner of'iVxesdied and his assistant was promoted to his position. There was no right color there. The Government printer died, and the position was given to his assistant. Again no right color there. Coming to this locality, Is there a “right cokr” man appointed to any opsitiou ! Mr Lisle, of I’aroora, and Mr A. White, of Geraldine, wore appointed Justices of the Peace. Were they of the right color ! Of all the persons

who have been appointed valuers under the Land Tax, not one of them was of the right color. Mr McMillan, who is employed as a valuer under the Land for Settlement is not of the right color. Mr Newton, who has been appointed solicitor under the Land for Settlement in Oamaru, is not of the right color. Then what color is Mr Raymond, of Timaru, who has been appointed solicitor under the Land for Settlement also. He certainly would not claim to be of the right color, but* that did not stand in his way in getting the appointment. It was known that ho was not only one of the most capable lawyers in the district, but also one of the most honest and most honorable men in the legal profession—that he could be relied upon to do justice to the department and its clients—and for this he was selected. We congratulate the district on the appointment of Mr Raymond; no better man could have been selected, but if the Government had acted on the color principle he would not have been chosen. However, he has been chosen, and it is fortunate for the Government and the district that he has, but does not his appointment, together with the many others we have named, prove that this charge, which is so frequently levelled against the Government, is false ? Then if we hud one charge false, is it not possible that other charges are equally mendacious ? We see all around us proof of the falsehood in the fact that so far as we know not one appointment of the right color has been made. This paper claims to be of the “ right color,” if there is one in the colony, but what has it gained by it ? Its revenue from Government advertisements has fallen by about 60 per cent, not because the Government has boycotted us, but because they have been trying to cut down expenses, and we have had to bear our share of the retrenchment as well as other people. The Conservative papers say that they are being boycotted, but they are no more boycotted than we are: the Government have cut down the cost of advertising all round, and that is the whole of it. One thing we desire to add, and it is this, and we say it without hesitation:—No Government has ruled New Zealand during the last 20 years whose hands are cleaner, and no Government have been more vilified, misrepresented and belied. The reason is because they are trenching on monopolistic interests, and working to the advantage of the people. This is the secret of the bitterness of the opposition, but we have no doubt the people will see it, and show they are not going to be misled by falsehoods specially designed to deceive them.