FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13103, 30 April 1908, Page 5

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

SUMMING UP SPEECHES. Proceedings in tic fa.rm labourere , dispute before the Conciliation Board wero resumed at tbo Supreme Court yesterday.' All the members of the Board were present, Mr V. Minson presiding. Replying to Mr Acland, Mr Thorn said that his reply would embrace both the sheepowners' and tho farmers' cases; he did not intend to reply to them separately. Mr ,Tom>s raid that ho had thought throughout tho whole of tho proceedings that the two cases must 1» kept , separated, and if they were not separated tho jwKitioji would be very complex; ho did not want his case mixed up with that of the sheepou-ncrs, nor did Mr Aclacd wish the ono case mixed up with tho other. The Chairman eeid that Mr Adand hail imiKrweod on the- Board" tho necessity for the eaee against tho sheopowners being thrown out for want of evidence. No doubt the Board would consider that request, and in that way trrat the cases as separate. Mr l>. Jones, in opening his sumrring up on behalf of the farmers, said that Mr Evans and ho re-echoed Mr Acland's words as to the courtesy they had received from the Board in connection with tho case. The hearing had extonded over euch a lengthy period that on many occasions it must have been trying to tho chairman, the members of the' Board, aifd the parties, to keep that equilibrium that was co ' ir.uch desired. They had been satisfied 1 with tho treatment they had received throughout the whole case. IMPORTANCE OF THE ENQUIRY. At the opening of the proceedings the chairman of the Board had referred to the magnitude of the enquiry, and that, briefly, its object was to ascertain the relative valuo ot wages and labour in the agricultural industry; tho word •'relative ,5 was ono that tho Board would carefully weigh; it was not a question of country wages as compared with town wages. It I seemed to him impossible to exaggerate the importance of the enquiry; the Board was dealing with an industry that employed more labour, paid more taxes, and produced more exportable wealth than all the other industries in New Zealand. In the history of industrial arbitration and conciliation in the th» Dominion no Board had had placed in their hands such a case as the ono before the Board. The amount of capital that was involved was tremendous, and without being an advocate of tho

te-nots of either partj', they recognised that capital had its rights and labour had its rights, and that they had to hold tho balanoo fairly between them. The Board held in their hands the destiny of 10,000 farm labourers, and probably as many farmers and farmers' I sons. Tho enquiry could not have been I mado much shorter; indeed, there wow j many men who woukl have liked to J havo placed thoir cases before tho i ~oard. but had been unable to do so. I The result of the enquiry had been to I tho fanners exceedingly satisfactory; !to those engaged in an industry that was so wide and employed so much. 1 labour, it was a cause of gratification that- there was not a single case thathad been brought before tho Board that, when all the circumstances sur-ror.-nding it were, takcai into consideration, required any adjustment. Iho TVoard would recognise that the aim of the Union waa to alter the social conditions tinder which the farmer and farm labourer lived, and was not merely the usual question of wages; and that tho effect of an award would be to bring the law into the farmers' homes, to live wiih them twenty-four hours every day—quite different to the town employer who closed his factory door and left his award and hie troubles behind him.

THE UNION'S WITNESSES. Tho Board in taking into consideration the credibility of the witnesses, would consider their old ago as well as their youth, «ui<l would easily irnd*-r----fetaaid that an old man would be deeply interested in getting a minilmim wage fixed. The , Board, would also take into consideration tho large wreentanre o f Australians which lLa<l noen called by tho Union*; mest of those witnesses had only been in New Zealand a year or two, and had admitted- that tho conditions hero were ' far superior to the conditions in AusI traiia. Yet these men had , attempted Ito lay down laws and' to bring NewZealand under those ln.ws, though they had _ practically no experience of the conditions existing. Preference to laiienists in euch circumst«xnces would mean preference to foreigners. Thorn: Forei<jners-*s The Chairman aslsed that Mr Jones should be given a quiet and attentivehearinp. Mr Jones, continuing, said that the Board was not out for the purpose <>t collecting records, and should attach rnor* importance to general then to particular instances. The New Zealand farm worker could not go to any place in the world to better his condition. A very large percentage of the Union's witnesses were casual men. Of the fifteen ploughmen who had given evidence on behalf of the Union, only two were in permanent employment in the district. These casual men lived near the townships and were the kind o+' men they could not carry on the work of farming with. That fact would become very apparent when they came to deal with the evidence.

NO CASE AGAINST FARMERS. Like Mr Acland. he contended that the farmere had nothing to answer, that there -was absolutely no case against them. The Union had been endeavouring to show that their demands wore reasonable, but what they ebould have done was to hare proved to the Board that existing conditions wore unreasonable or unjust. To put on a sheet of paper a list of conditions and ask: '"Can you work onder these, ,, and ask the Board to begin an experiment with the whole agricultural industry of New Zealand, was a remarkable thing; they should have proved that existing conditions were unjust or unsatisfactory, and they had not done that. The fact was to bo recognised that the farmer and his man were practically on ■equal terms as far as the work was concerned—that vratTlho state of affairs on tho vast majority of the farms in Canterbury. The iarmcre lived with their men. and there must be harmony between them if farming was to_ be carried on satisfactorily. To bring in a line of demarcation, to separate the farmer and the labourer, was something that the farmers and working men of Canterbury objected to, and was the one feature of the enquiry that tho men were as strongly opposed to as their employers were. If an award on the lines of the doinands was granted.

the harmony at present existing would be destroyed, with disastrous results to the industry. Very strong reasons must be shown Ivefore the Board thought of experimenting with an industry of the dimensions of the one before it. A POLITICAL AGITATION*. On many occasions ho (Mr Jones) had contended that ,the case was not a farni labourers' case, but a caee of the Political Labour League in Canterbury. Mr Thorn: Ret! Mr Jo tics (continuing) said that liis friend across the table smiled and mentioned a word describing a. thine that ho had to deal with; but it did not alter the fact that the ca«e was an attempt to prostitute, the Arbitration Act for political purposes. One ot the. audience: Hoar, hear. 'Die Chairman: I cannot allow that. Mr Jones said that -when oho lived for ronifi months with Mr Kennedy during tho proceedings before the Board one understood his persistency, ami one also understood that there could be no real dissatisfaction when Mr Kennedy, with all his persistency, was, during the time he was connected with the union, unablo to get members until he went to town for help. Mr Thorn had stated that the. reason for getting assistance from town was that farm labourers were ignorant of the prooe-

dnro in connection with casoe before th-e Board ; but ho (Mr Jones) was satisfied that the Board would recognise that it was a libel on the. farm labourers to say that they could not conduct their own business. The best evidence that the men were satisfied was the fact that they wanted to remain outside tho j Union. The fact was that the leaders of tho movement were the leaders of the Political Labour League. Mr Kennedy: That's not right. Mr Thorn: That's not right; it is quite wrong. The Chairman: "Whether it is right or wrong. Mr Jones is in possession, and is entitled to a clear and impartial hearing, and I intend to see that he gets it. Your opportunity, Mr Thorn, will come, and I will sco that you have as full freedom as Mr Jones is having now. A SOCIALISTIC SCHEME. Mr Jones said that the Hon. J. A. Millar had told a deputation that waited on him that labour would never get its full power until it organised the country workers; but the Political Labour League had recognised that before the Minister, and his contention was born© out by v letter which Mr Thorn wrote, as secretary of the Agri- j cultural and Pastoral Labourers' Union, [ to the ; New Zealand Times," and which had appeared in the recent issue of that newspaper. Prior to this, Mr Gohns, as stated in Mr Evans's evidence, had stated that if they could not organise the- country workers their power would be lost. , Mr Jones then quoted from Mr Thorn's letter to the effect .that Mr Millar had said that if progressive labour legislation was wanted the country workers would have to be organised. That clearly proved, he continued, that Mr Thorn recognised that he was working in the case before the Board in a political movement, that ho had been doing so from the beginning, and that the organise-

tion of tho country workers was part of a deep-laid scheme of the Socialistic party to gather strength in the country. To say that the Union was started before Mr Millar made his statement had no force; they had simply recognised it before Mr MiMar did. Tf tho Board remembered Mr Thorn's public addresses in tho different centres they would sen that they proved what, he. VMr Jones) said. A large amount of financial support had been received by the Union from the towns, as could bo seen from tho published balancesheet, but the agitation had been fed on statements that were contrary to fact. Mr Thorn contended that j he was doing / good •in bringing about "intelligent discontent." but the farm workers who had given evidence on behalf of the farmers had said that they were satisfied : that they were receiving fair r»- I numeration for their services: but in . another sense they were dissatisfied in that they were prepared to take advantage of every opportunity to improve their positions and become farmers themselves. The other class of discontented workers had told the Board that they had no amb'tion to ny/n farms, and Mr Kennedy bad said that he would not take a section on Oulverden if it- '.vas given to him. They were simply discontented in the sense of the term that Mr Thorn was so fond of using: "Gr*b all you can!" Mr Thorn: Just like the farmers. Mr Jones said that that class of d'seontent was unhealthy, and would be disnfctrous. at any rate in connection with farming: it was tho discontent of the man who wanted to do less work

and got more pay. EXTREME STATEMENTS. ; When one considered tho class of \ statements mado by tho Union in con- ' neotion with- tho case, it was no wool- ' der 'that the U.ndo7i- got strong. If * some of tho statements mndo had been ' proved iho."w<ruld not be standing ask- < iujr that present conditions should remain : but those- stat-emonts h-nd not been proved. In evidence Mr Williams , (Ivaiapoi) hnd stnfed that the remarks ' made by Mr McCulloiigh when ad- ' dTcsrvin»* a meotin-s; in connection , with ' the Union were designed to arouse tihe * greed and avarice of tho Tt < was easily seen how the membership ' would increase w*h-en" b-ribes of higher * wncros a n<l more holidays were 1 hold' out. The swusation of intimid-a- J tion by farmers had cot been sub&tan- t tiated : it had been proved that farm- i t ere had offered to If* tboir men go bo- | J; fore t!ho Board ajid gixw evidence if ! I , thoy wished. The political aspect of the i n case was alt important, for there was li no doubt that the whole of tho ngita- h tion had been created for political n purpose*. d

A GRAVE PUBLIC SCANDAL. However pood it-foe Arbitration A tit had been in tho outset, it had been prostituted in tJio present cose for political purposes. «md the country worker* wore being used as a ladder whereby .other irwm were go-ing to climb in.to power. If this was a fact, then the ci rerun stance that eoren m<?n had keen able, to eit-e 7000 farmers in addition to muiry was one of the gravest public scandals that Xew ZfvikJTid h-ad <;ver known. Mr Jnst.irr Sim had Rtat-ed +h.-jt ther<» was r?o industrial dispute with a-nv of tho farmers cited, and tfbp enquiry had shown that peace and harmony existed amongst the farmers ,md their employere; coneeqtuentlT tta>~ dispute irae only a ma-Titifaotured article. A NON-REPRESENTATIVE UNION. They oon-tendod ihaV the Uxiion did not represent the agricultural Jaßouj-

er. The Farmers' Umdon Siad asked for a conference with the Labourers , Union, -and expressed a <Wire to attempt to Tedre&s aJiy grievances or disabilities.- under which farm labourers Laboured; the Labourers' Ciuon had never attempted to meet them. In reply to the chairman, Mr Thorn said ibo would put in tie correspondence referred to. Mr Jones (continuing) said that although Mr McCulloiTtrh in his sworn statement* had said 7* at a meeting in connection with the Union,'at Southbridge Tiad been attended by 100 to 120 people, it was a significant fact that they had been unable to find a member of the Union who had been present. He challenged the Union to prove that ten members of the Union who were farm labourers were present. The policy of the Union throughout the whole case excited the gravest suspicion. It- had been proved that a large ""number of their members were not farm labourers: the Union had resisted all attempts made to get them to produce their books, and there was j only one inference to draw, and that was that they had something to conceal. If tho 1500 members of the Union were farm labourers, the Union I would have been pleased to put their books in. Mr Thorn had stated at ! Ashburton that with the exception ot four or five, all tho members were farm labourers; but they had shown that one officer of tho Union worked at tho Ternuka gasworks; D'Arey. though lie had ten months' experience as v ploughman in New Zealand, and had been a farmer in Australia., wa.s tho secretary of several Lnions in Christchurch, and was working on similar lines to Mr Thorn ; then Mr Baldwin, who gave evidence as a labourer, was tho president of tho Tanners , Union, and know nothing about farm work: an officer of the Union at Oxford was foreman to the Road Bonrd, and another officer was a bootmaker, but hart a small place and called himself a farmer, though ho also held a position in tlie Working Men's Club; Mr Gordon, I3ie secretary at Hangiora. had started that two members -were roadmen and another was employed in the town. He quoted from the evidence giving several similar instances. Mr Thorn had stated that ".past, present, and future farm labourers had a perfect Tight to join tho Union," so that Sir Joseph "Ward was eligible for membership. !

Mr Thorn: I don't think we would have liim.

A CLOSE CORPORATION. The evidence of Mr Williams (Kaiapoi) went to show that the Union was a close corporation; he applied to bo admitted, but was refused.

Mr Thorn: He told us X* was a farmer, and ho wasn't adniuTed.

.Mr Jones said that the evidence was there. Further, Mr Thorn, replying to Mr Acland, had stated that they had any amount of small farmers in the Union, and that the custom was when a small farmer was proposed as a member, for the matter to be discussed by the branch interested, and if it was considered ''a fair thinp." he was accepted; his merits and his sympathies wero- discussed, and the question of admission was settled by vote. The Union practically admitted those that they pleased, and those wTio wero in. sympathy with them; T>ut that it was a Farm Labourers' Union—well, ho would leave it to London "Punch"' to tako it up. In reply to the chairman. Mr Thorn undertook to supply copies of the Union's rules to the Soard. !

Mr Jones pointed out that when Mr Williams applied to bo admitted. hr\ only farmed 30 acres, -whilst Mr Tborn had etated that some of their members farmed '50 or 60 acres.

Mr TTiom: He told us he- was a farmer, and ho took irp a hostile attitude.

Mr Jones: That proves what T have been saying. Tho Chairman: You could haTdly expect thorn to tako in a man who is hostile! - ■ > Mr Jones ca.id that that was. just the point. Hew could preference.<to umonists be giranted if mra who were ibcetile to tho U'nio:i wore not admitt*d. For the Union r(vorcCT.ntativee to talk aibouit trtuste in such circumstances ' was a bMutiful bit of iiinconsistenc\". legally. Ibt* did not think that tih.e Unkii could admit Mr Wi!!i'ja.ms, as the members cf the t>ion must be workera. Ho conimeT.i'rd 0:1 th.v fact f!i*t tlwjugh the. Union niigiht lvire- braoiches 1 iti cwry township- from Oulvcnden to i the Wia.itaki, once they got away from tho townehirß tho Unvcii I'.n.d got _-no wittneesee. That men joined the Umioti did not necessarily ipirove discontonr; wh«n t.ho dicmands were- tak-en round, and the men fxv that 30s twt wee-k and holidays -wen* aeiked for. tiwy iproba.bly eadcl: 'Thi-s. iis a, bit of a ixiQlo. and 1 we're in it." Judsing 3>y the attiitudo of the TVaimatc Workers' Union towards the Farm I/aibouireTO , Union, it would apipea.r thsiit thx> firet n:entiont"d consideired tihat the Feirm T/alwm.rc»rs' Uniion fond gone> ut> rocketlike., aJid wa® ;ffoniw cto piow?s as fast. Farm workers had given ■evidence that • tho present system was the best, and that •th'py did not want <an award : tHio niajority did -not want a. small clique out.-'Vle. tih? mduKtrj- att-oiTruntiniC to reffulatp thorn, a.nd tlids tbenmg a Dwrnocratic country tho majority should

rule. • THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW. All hietory proved that a law could ■not l>o carried inito operation ageiinisfc tho feelings of the ■majority of the people. Be- did net make, that sta.t©ment as -a throat, but h<? knew the. bu:rnir.r.r in Canterbury ever the caffo, o>rd no law could be effectively carrsVd inio operation when there wee 10.000 orw>sed to it. end ih-y vast- of tih*» men were in symspathy ynth. , them. A law, to Iμ? ■e.ffr.r>tive, must, havo its CT.ncdiio>n in the common-sens© and good judgment ef the r>efvT)le. Mt TvT!«n he/sarVl that- tb,e imipoirt«nce cf the ca<-& had haxiti 'esa-g«*r-mtcA. nliiowed .h-s> did not rcscogniso. whmt ho was do'ine.

MR. KEYXEDY'S EVIDENCE. On KWTirp.l orrasions Mr Komnedv «.d «t-a.fced tivt h* was ih~. founder of lv» Union. a.nd •Iμ? contended tlia.t the ridviiicp (fljiven by Mm was a .oroes ex■ggeriMticm of facts. ThcTo h-\d boon «aW feeiing over eom-e remarks made v M;r KoTmedy, a.nrl hi? oontondrd h?t tho Uniion on the Jifiis c.f -tJi© facits giY€sn_T)T Mr Ken<"<)y rin. li:** evid<>Tic<?: if c«nqii:iiry id not eaitetan+.iaie these farts ; t'h<>n iii> Union h<\d beon formod on a faly<> nsis. Wri-1, 'n-o ovi?d<»nce had beoiri to prove 31r Kennedy's etat/v out thnt only on one place that he ad -worked on -was the Foot' aJI. that * (Sir KViincdy) d«=nrpd. Tsio stait^v ent that the lia-rvest bonus -was- "a •lusion and a maw ,, was anotJicr sLrc>B<r fcitate,mcnt Wr Kennedy had -not l>een n,V!o + o nrcre. Mr Kennedv'e urodnctioji of a pi&ce of bacrm tiha.f had been eywscd wather for eeren monthe was «n a**empt to im&-: made by Mr Kennedy B that ho kneiv- a.Wutdy about the ?n*V I* i t,Str> ' ; k ' rawl to <ihink tliat a man who had traTrfle<l xnro-nzh Centerburr not f, PlO,,g f- a wai on o? 7 ««*Jd be 0.1 Mr Kennedy's cridenco- hn rapacity as a worker had been 'shoS by Mr Jackson and it was such That Mr Kennedy could not be considered to be in a position to know what the ■agricultural labourer wanted or was capable of doing; the abolition of extract work was asked for, vet Mr Kenthat he'had not snlted potato-diggers an important class of contract workers'. Mr Ken-

ncdy's statements regarding swamp ploughing had been shown to oe ridiculous, and .many.of his allegations regarding tho state of affairs at Mr Jackson's, where he'was employed, had been proved to ,bel inaccurate—for instance, as to his statement that there was.au arrangement between him and his employer as to looking after the horses, Mr Jackson had said: "Is it- likely that llj would have a man lying in bed and I do his work." As a whole, it seemed that Sir Kennedy's experiences here or elsewhere had been unfortunate,"antl his vision had been disordered thereby: he must be afflicted with the "camera eye" and saw every tiling upside down. That one who was "here to-day and gone to-morrow" could take advantage of a law that was admittedly weak showed the necessity .for the (farmers protecting themselves. EVIDENCE REGARDING DISSATISFACTION. Mr Jones devoted tho greater portion of the afternoon to an exhaustive analysis of the evidence given regarding the alleged dissatisfaction, and at the same time dealt with the credibility of the Union's witnesses. As to the Union's evidence regarding dissatisfaction, he showed.that no testimony was rriven in any of the districts visited that disclosed any general, widespread, or deep-rooted dissatisfaction. There were instances of individuals being dissatisfied, some with their wages, others with their hours, but these did not substantiate the claim that the country workers as a wholp were dissatisfied.

The Board adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-day, irhen Mr Jon<?e will resume his address.