67

I 9a

B. MCLAREN.

70. What caused the Willis Blot to be put in the Arbitration Act?—As far as I could judge, it was the ridicule that was cast on the Boards. 71. I think you might go a little further and say it was through the objectionable scenes that occurred on the Board, and which created a public feeling against it? —There were certainly individuals on the Board who, in my judgment, had no proper grasp of their duties. 72. The Chairman.] What Board do you refer to? —The Wellington Board. It would necessarily take some time for men dealing with a new law, and who had no knowledge of formal procedure or anything of that nature, to settle down to an understanding of their functions. The procedure of the Board, as 1 pointed out in my evidence, was left to the judgment of the members themselves, without regulation, and in my opinion that was wrong. 73. The Board had been in existence six or seven years before the amendment was made. The Act came into force in 1895, and the Willis Blot came in in 1901 ?—Yes. 74. You take exception to clauses 22 to 30, " Enforcement of Awards "; you said they were all involved clauses with the word "fine" all through them. I want to get at this matter specifically : a fine is a penalty for a breach of the law —is not that so? —Yes. 75. In every Court where penalties are inflicted the penalty is enforced by either payment or imprisonment?— Yes, within limits; but I do not think a fine of this nature should be enforced by imprisonment. 76. You want this particular class of offence treated differently from others, and dealt with by itself ?—Yes. 77. Then the married man who commits a breach and has goods to distrain on will have to pay, while the single man will be allowed to run scot-free? —It does not affect the position, to my mind, because the married man, as a rule, has not more property than the single man. 78. Take the average mechanic working in this colony —the married man: how many of them have not property? Do you think there are 10 per cent, of them who have not?— Yes, a great deal more than that. 79. Where a breach is committed by a union, you approve of the married man who has property to distrain upon being compelled to pay the fine, while the other man, who has not paid any more money into the union, and has received similar advantages, should be allowed to walk side by side with the married man and get off scot-free?— Yes, because the only alternative is the attachment of his wages. 80. It is not the attachment of wages at all, it is the enforcement of a penalty due to the Crown? —It is an attachment of wages by the Crown. 81. Then the only other alternative the Crown has is imprisonment. Do you desire that?— No. 82. There is no other alternative? —You cannot deal with the single man in any other way. Take the slaughtermen : how have you been able to deal with them? Some of them are not in the country. 83. I am dealing with them in this Act, and they will not come back to this country unless they pay. Do you think it is just that married men in this country, who are spending their wages week after week and month after month, and paying a large proportion of the taxation of the country, should be compelled to go on paying their fines, while men from Australia should pay nothing? Do you call that justice? —No. 84. Well, how am I to get at those men ? —There is one way of getting at them—that is, by empowering the unions to collect the fines. It is the unions of workers who are injured. 85. Do you recommend that I should take it off the members and put it on the unions? —Not in all cases. 86. If it is suggested that where a penalty is inflicted on a member of a union the union itself should deal with him, I shall be willing to amend the Bill in that direction? —That would be better than any system of imprisonment. 87. I am quite willing to delete the provision for imprisonment and make the union responsible so long as we can enforce the penalty inflicted on every person on whom it is imposed?— The unions to have power over all the workers engaged in the industry —the unions to have statutory preference to unionists ? 88. They will never get that?—l recognise it is a most difficult problem to solve, either for the Legislature or ourselves as trade-union officers; but I hold strongly that the opening of safety is not on the lines of fines or legal coercion at all. 89. Still you want statutory preference to unionists: is that not legal coercion?—No, it is legal compensation for that which the organized workers have given up. 90. It is legal coercion for men to be compelled to join a union ? —No, if I give up the right of free contract, together with my fellows, then I have a right to something by way of compensation. 91. It is a voluntary contract: the law does not compel you to be a unionist at all? —The law tells us to refrain from the use of methods of free contract. 92. Having entered on new conditions, the law leaves you free to go outside of the Act?— The law leaves us free to be completely at the mercy of the employing class, or, in the alternative, to have our combinations and give up the right of free contract. 93. It gives you the right to remain outside? —In the case of the slaughtermen they took the line of free contract. They said in effect, "The market is suitable for a rise"—just as the merchants might say —" and we are going to ' bear ' the market," and they did. If the workers in their combinations give up that right they ask for something by way of compensation. 94. The compensation is granted you by giving you the machinery to settle your disputes, which otherwise could only be settled under the system of free contract ?—That is only compensation for the workers per se —as workers individually, not as workers in combination.