[W. T. TOUNG.

I.—9a.

120

and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill, and having considered the measure, hereby place on record our entire approval of that manifesto, and consider the measure to be anything but in the interests of the workers. Further, if the measure is made law, this council will immediately recommend the unions under its control to cancel their registrations under the Act, in order to preserve the rights and privileges it proposes to deprive them of. That the secretary be instructed to give evidence against the cardinal features of the Bill before the Labour Bills Committee on behalf of the federation." That resolution was passed on the 25th September last. The statement was made that the Tramway Union of Auckland supported the Bill. When that statement was made I was giving my evidence before this Committee. On retiring from this room I immediately sent a telegram through to the Auckland Union conveying the substance of the statement, and desiring to know if that statement was correct or otherwise. I received a reply to this effect, dated the 21st September: "Surprised at contents of your telegram. Union authorises you to give evidence before the Commitee against the Bill on its behalf. Authority and full instructions posted to-day, along with copy of letter sent to Minister. You should get it on Tuesday morning. Act on it at once, and refute statement. This union condemns the Act. —Rosser." Subsequent to the telegram I received this power of authority from the Auckland Electric Tramways Union, dated the 21st September: " Mr. W. T. Young is hereby authorised to appear before the Labour Bills Committee of the House of Representatives to give evidence against the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill, 1907, on behalf of the above union.—Arthur Rosser, Secretary." Accompanying that power of authority was this letter, of the same date, from the same union: " Mr. W. T. Young, Secretary Tramways Federation, Wellington.—Dear Sir, —I received your telegram last night, and am very much surprised at the assertion that the Minister had received a communication from my union approving of the new Bill. At a meeting of the management committee called to consider the matter the members considered no expression too strong in condemnation of the measure, and I was instructed to authorise you to appear before the Labour Bills Committee on behalf of the union and give evidence to that effect. I was also instructed to send you a copy of the circular letter sent by the president under the seal of the union to the Hon. J. A. Millar and Messrs. Tanner, Poole, and Ell. This copy is now enclosed, and on perusal of it you will have great difficulty in seeing anything that can be construed to be in favour of it. The A.E.T. Company are in favour of the measure from beginning to end, and it has occurred to me that perhaps Mr. Millar has received a communication from them to that effect, and has confounded the company with the workers' union. I know the measure meets with the approval of the company, because one of the principal officers has been inquiring as to when the Act was likely to come into operation, and also advising the men as to the selection of a secretary from their own ranks. My union would send a representative to Wellington to give evidence against the Bill, so strongly do the members feel against it; but we are engaged in a fight to a finish with the City Council and the company over the "straphanger" by-law, and we shall need all our money, and perhaps more. For this reason we ask you to be good enough to represent us and oppose the Bill on all points. You cannot put it too strong. —Arthur Rosser, Secretary." This is a copy of the letter sent to the Hon. Mr. Millar and Messrs. Tanner, Poole, and Ell: " Auckland Electric Tramways Union, Auckland, 16th September, 1907.—Dear Sir,—As presidentof a union that by force of circumstances is compelled to employ as secretary a man from outside our own calling, it is my duty to represent to you our strongest condemnation of the provisions of the new Arbitration Act Amendment Act. Although there are other tramway unions in the colony, my union is unique in having to work under a private company, the of which are in London. The other tramway systems of the colony are owned by municipalities, who are generally expected to advance the interest of the electors who place them in their public position, and any defection on their part in this respect can be coped with once every two years at the ballot-box. On the other hand, the members of my union are working for a rich foreign private company, whose sole object is to create the highest dividends for its shareholders, 60 per cent, of whom are out of the colony, at the lowest possible outlay. During the few years that my union has been in existence —since 1903 —we have found that our secretaries, when taken from our own ranks, have been complete failures, as they have always been liable to be under the thumb of the company, and have not been able to act independent of their own necessarily selfish interests. As an instance of this kind of tyranny by the company, I may mention that two years ago we had a secretary who was a conductor in the employ of the company, and, being instructed by the union to proceed South in the interests of the men, he did so under holiday leave from the company. Unfortunately he overstepped his leave by a day, and on his return he was told his place was filled. Other cases can be cited of a like character, but I trust I have given sufficient reasons for my union objecting to the Bill on this one clause alone. Surely the union members are the best judges as to the best men to select as their officers without such unwarranted interference from an Act brought down by a bona fide Labour Minister. We object to the Act in toto, as it takes away our right to settle our disputes with the least expense to our union—viz., the direct appeal to the Court; because it interferes with our right to dispose of our funds as we think fit; because it limits the selection of men for our officers. Therefore, I am instructed to oppose the measure most strenuously on behalf of the union I have the honour to be the president of, and to state further that if the Act passes in its present revolutionary condition, my union will cancel its registration as an industrial union and employ whom we please, and settle our disputes with a rapacious private company in the effective, if cruel, method of a strike, without fear of a prosecution and resultant fine for so' doing. I have written somewhat strongly, but my fellow-members feel strongly upon this matter, and have commissioned me to speak out straight upon it, We look to you, from "the representations you will have received from all quarters, to prevent the Bill going through in its present state, as the greatest measure of approbation comes from the Employers' Association, and that is quite sufficient to set a wise man thinking.—Trusting you will see that