THE DEFENCE OF THE CHINAMAN.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 284, 30 November 1910, Page 8

THE DEFENCE OF THE CHINAMAN.

tET HIM WORK HIMSELF TO DEATH. THE EUROPEAN REMEDY. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The second, reading of the Factories Amendment Tjill (which is designed to protect white labour in laundries' from unfair competition on the part of Chinamen) in the Legislative Council this evening was the cause of ji violent outburst ■by the Hon. W. C. F. Oarneross against the bill, which he describes as cowardly and unfair. Mr. Carneross said he did not think such legislation should be ibrought down. If the Europeans were feeling the effect of Chinese competition the remedy was in their own hands; they need not patronise the Chinaman. If a Chinaman sold bananas at Jd per dozen less than anyone else he got the trade. "I don't think," he said, with some vehemence, "that we should kowtow to demands for legislation of this kind. I say it is cowardly legislation. If a Chinaman wants to work himself to death, let him do it." The Hon. J. T. Paul said he could never understand why Mr. Carneross rose up ac the champion of the Chinaman. Mr. Carneross: As the champion of fair play. Mr. Paul: Chinese competition 'has never given .white labour fair play. We have got more right to stand up for fair play for our own people than for the Chinaman. He declared that Chinese competition in the furniture making trade in Melbourne had ruined the Europeans in the same industry. After all what was at the bottom of the Ibill? The instinct of the white race to protect the white race, and that was a noMe instinct. If Mr. Carneross had ever studied the influence of an β-lien race on white people he would know that the result had ;been disastrous. The competition of Chinese in the laundry business was unfair competition. The Chinamen worked under conditions that a European would decline to work under. It was all very well to talk of not patronising Chinamen, hut they Trad, for instance, a monopoly of the fruit trade. The Hon. C. H. Mils and the Hon. J. B. Oallan supported the bill. The latter said that the Chinaman did his work so cheaply, and lived so cheaply that if legislation of this kind were not passed it would mean the ousting of the white man. If the hon. gentleman were logical he would advocate that trading vessels should be allowed to come here with Laecar crews. * Mr. Carneross said his meaning had been distorted. He simply urged that the proprietor of a laundry or a laundry man who was not an employer of labour should be allowed to work as long as he liked. The Hon. W. Beehan said no white man would work the long hours that Chinamen did. The Attorney-General said he appreciated the courage which had prompted Mr. Carncrose to deliver such an outspoken speech. He was sure all the members of the Council differed from the hon. gentleman in this matter. The •legislature had a divided duty, a. duty to itwo classes of people; to one, an alien race whose mode of living was wholly different from our own; the other to a class which was our own people, whose standard of comfort was quite different. They had to protect the white race, though in doing that they might impose some hardship on alien races. The work in laundries was mainly done by women. The hours of labour for women had Jbeen" restricted by Act of Parliament, but under the law as it stood at present 10 Chinamen working one establishment could form themselves into a partnership. In fact, they were not principals. Their partnership was a mere fiction and a figment. The legislature would say that it would not allow Chinamen in this way to rob women of that which earned for them their livelihood. The bill was read a second time on the Toicee. ... - :