THE SLAUGHTERMEN'S STRIKE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8376, 9 March 1907, Page 5

THE SLAUGHTERMEN'S STRIKE.

By Telegraph—Press Association.

CHRISTCHURCH, March 8. Hoth sides in the slaughtermen's dispute still stand firm. The men state that they will not work except at the increased rates, and the em-, ployers insist that the matter should be referred to the Court. The men will not consent to this. The manager of the Christchurch Meat Company states that the company may be able to do without the men. New hands are coming in steadily, and over forty are now killing at the company's works at Islington and Smithfield. The men state that they do not intend to pay the fines inflicted by the Court, and, as they have no property, they do not consider enforcement possible. AUCKLAND, March 8. As a result of a meeting of the newly-formed Auckland Slaughtermen's Union a log was, yesterday, forwarded to the Provincial Master Butchers' Association and several big butchering establishments in Auckland, with a request that an answer should be given by 5 o'clock tomorrow evening. Details are witheld, but it is generally understood that the men demand to be placed on the same footing as the Southern employees in the matter of rate of pay and hours of labour. It is understood that in the event of the men ceasing work they will make arrangements enabling employers to maintain the meat supply fo domestic use. INVERCARGILL, March 8.

The position as regards the strike is somewhat reversed locally. Recently there were sheep and no men. Now there are men and no sheep. At Mataura a full board of 14 butchers is available, and they are expected to start on Saturday. They would have started to-day if sheep had been available.' At Wallacetown butchers are being engaged. The position at Ocean Beach is unchanged. Seven of the Mataura men are ex-strikers. The slaughtermen hold a meeting- tomorrow for the purpose, it is said, of considering another offer by the companies. The companies say nothing about the new offer, and state that they abide by the original proposals. WELLINGTON, March 8. The Cabinet is to meet, to-mor-row, to consider the position regarding the refusal of the Canterbury slaughtermen to pay the fines imposed on them by the Arbitration Court.

Interviewed on the subject, tonight, the Hon. Dr. Findlay, Attor-ney-General, said, in, regard to the question whether the machinery of the Act is so defective as to permit of its violation with impunity: "Upon this test I claim to speak with more certainty and authority than with regard to the first test, because this is entirely a question of law. It narrows itself down to this—can those who strike,and have been fined, be imprisoned for non-payment of their fine's? This question can be answered without the slightest hesitation in the affirmative. The law is perfectly clear, and it stands thus: Section i 5 of the Act of 1905, under which the men were fined, declares that those who strike shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine. By Section 101, where a fine is imposed it is enforced by means of a certificate given under the hand of the clerk and the seal of the court, which, when filed in any court having civil jurisdiction, shall thereupon be enforcing in all respects as a final judgment of such court. Therefore a certificate in respect of the fines which have been imposed may be filed in the Supremo Court, and the penalty may thereupon be enforced against the defendants. A fine, it will be remembered, is not a debt within the meaning of the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, for default in payment of any penalty or of any sum in the nature of a penalty is expressly excepted from that Act. The protection, then, of the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act is not given to the defendants here. In England, under the same circumstances, they could, on non-payment, be arrested under what the lawyers call the ca, sa. In New Zealand, under the Supreme Court Code of 1882, the procedure is by way of motion for attachment on filing and service of which the defendant has an opportunity of showing that he has paid the fine. If he has not done so he may be sent to prison for a period not exceeding one year. The limitation of one year is contained in the last paragraph of the third section of the Imprisonment for Debt Act. There fore the powers of the law in punishing a man convicted of taking part in a strike and failing to pay the fine imposed upon him are exceedingly wide, and I know of no rule which would prevent the Supreme Court from committing a man, whose fine is not paid, to prison for such a term less than a year as the court may think fit. I am informed that the fines already imposed amount to over £7OO, and it is quite clear that if each man who joins in a strike may be fined £lO, as is allowed by the Act, and in default of payment may be sent to gaol for a substantial term, the Act furnishes a deterrent which most responsible and sensible men would not treat lightly. Can it then be said that in this second test of the enforceability of its awards the Act has broken down? Surely, if my view of the law is right, this question can only be answered in one way. lam not the Minister for Labour, and in this connection my duty mainly lies in advising the Government. The Minister for Labour and the Acting-Premier have both spoken, and their determination to enforce the law has already been unequivocally declared."