THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1912. THE LABOUR MOVEMENT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10718, 31 October 1912, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1912. THE LABOUR MOVEMENT.

It is not for us to suggest how tho business of the- Labour Party in New Zealand shall be conducted. Although our sympathies are, and always havo been with the "cause that lacks assistance," we fail to see the necessity for the institution of an organisation which makes for "tho autonomy of the trades and solidarity of tho industries," as proposed by the United Laboar Party. Autonomy presumes the right of self-government for political and other purposes. How, may we ask, is it possible to concede self-gov-ernment to the trades, and at tho same time secure the solidarity of tho industries? If self-government is granted, private ownership must at once disappear. And if this should happen, where will be. tho solidarity of tho industries? What aro the industries of New Zealand? The greatest of them are those pertaining to the soil. Destroy the export trade in wool, flax, butter, frozen meat and clieose, and what have we left? Tlie primary industries in tho Dominion employ more labour, and produce more capital in a year, than all the. other industries do in a decade. Does the United Labour Party wish us to believe that if tho workers had autonomy of the trades, tho great primary industry would he on a- more secure footing than it is to-day? If the manufacture of hoots and clothing, the building of houses, and tho engineering works of tho Dominion were controlled and financed by the United Labour Party—as is suggested in the first plank of its platform—would the conditions of the great industries be improved? If so, in what manner? The United Labour Party says it stands for tho "peaceful settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and ; arbitration," but it reserves tho right to strike as a weapon of last resort. I In other words, the United Labour Party would pursue precisely tho same . eoom as ha? been pursue# by the

Trades Unions in the past. As, however, under autonomy, or self-govern-ment, disputes would bo impossible in respect to trades, the only necessity for "the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration" would be in respect to the primary industries. Tlio obvious mission of the United Labour Party is therefore to secure the control of the trades, and to extract concessions from the primary producers at tho point of the strike bayonet. Tho Federation of Labour proposes practically the same thing, tho only difference heln.tr that, instead of maTntpinuvj; the costly Arbitration M'd Or.neiliation machinery, it goes for-tho strike straight out as a means of soon ring its ends. We are not quite sure whether the methods of the federation of Labour-are. not less embarrassing to tho primary producer thr. those of the United Labour Party. In the ease of the latter, the employer and employee &re each hound under an award. If the former is dissatisfied with the award, or is guilty of a breach, he is liable tr> heat y penalties, and his goods mav be destrnincd upon. Tf the employee is dissatisfied, he may refuse to work, or he "reserves the strike as a weapon of last- resort." The Federation of Labour makes its demands, and if they c.lO not granted, a strike fo'hiw;. The employer, however, is not under the s:'.me pains and penalties as he would be under the United Labour Party's proposals. Tn both cases, it is well to remember, the strike is reserved as the hist weapon of resort. While this is so, tho primary or other industries cannot lie conducted with any measure of security. We are inclined to think that the aims of the United Labour Party are more dangerous than those of tho Federation of Labour, for they attempt not only to destroy the private ownership in trades, hut to secure a poliical control which will enable them to add oppression to the tyranny of the strike. The conviction is forced upon us that both the Unitecl Labour Party ;ind the Federation of Labour are a menace to the community. The objective oi each is to break down established institutions and customs and to set uy: a condition of tyranny of a most pernicious character. If the workers oi the Dominion —and by this we mean the'brain as well a? the manual workers, the rural as well as the city employees—wish to better their conditions, .they will take concerted actior with a view to returning to Parliament men who will destroy monopolies in both trade and labour; men whe will suppress agitators on both sides men who will prevent the aggi'cgatior of land and wealth as far as possible; and insist upon a fair day's work being given for a fair day's pay; mei: who will mn-ko strikes and lock-out,-penal; men who will enforce economic and industrial peace with tyranny There is no room in this country foi

the sweater and the monopol';:; 1 or is there room for tho agitator and striker. Joachim TCaspary, author of "The Guide of Life," in a recent article put the matter plainly when fe said: "Strikes and lock-outs, like wars, are the worst duels, injuring not only the duellists or combatants, hutalso tho general public, or neutrals. They are like duels fought with revolvers and bombs in the cro.vdod streets of London. As tho law wisely forbids and the Government forcibly prevents or stops duellists with revolvers and bombs to injure themselves .uul their peaceful neighbours, so the law ought to forbid nil' 1 the Government ought to prevent or stop railway, coal mine, or other strikes and lock-outs, if necessary, by compulsory arbitration, which during this competitive era ought to be always both generous towards sweated labourers and just towards even selfish capitalists."