FARM LABOURERS DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13110, 8 May 1908, Page 5

FARM LABOURERS DISPUTE.

SUMMING UP SPEECHES

Proceedings in the fanu labourers' dispute wero resumed before" the Conciliation Board at tho Supreme Court yesterday. All the members of tho Board were present, Mr Wj Minson presiding. Mr J). Jones, representing the farmers cited, resumed his summing up speech.

THE FOOD AT MR CAMERON'S. Proceeding to consider the evidence dealing with tho food given at Mr Duncan Cameron's (Station, Springfield, Mr Jones said that Wm. Dickie had referred to a "cart smothered with pigs' swill," and had stated that ho was employed by Mr Cameron 4 or o years ago; Mr Cameron had, in evidence, absolutely denied that Dickie was in his employ 4 or 0 years ago, though he had been employed by him 18 years ago, and Mr Thorn had admitted, in Court that Dickie had made a mistake in the period he was at Mr Cameron's. Dickie had been only three days on Springfield, and from that fact the Board could estimate the value to be placed on his statement as to pacelraking during stroking. Other witnesses bad been brought by tho Union to support Dickie's statements, but the Union should havo brought Dickie, himself to substantiate his owii statements; tho fact that Dickie came to Christchurch to see tho Union's representatives and was not then put into tho box to stibstantiate or deny fho statomeuts made in connection with Mr Cameron's, was conclusive' evidence that lie was not prepared to substantiate the statements he had made, and that he was not prepared to come before him (Mr Jones), knowing what he knew of him; after he (Mr Jones) had let him off once in cross-examination, Dickie had not been prepared to submit himself to a. second cross-examina-tion. Tho strongest condemnation of the Union's action was that its repreceotaitivcs had not recalled Dickie. OTHER EVIDENCE AS TO FOOD. Two or three others had been called to prove that tho food at Mr Cameron's was rough. Shoehan, who spent 3 years on the station camp ploughing; had stated that "there was any amount of food, but he considered it very rough"; but in the state of the labour market in New Zealand it was clear evidence- that the witness, had been well satisfied with Mr Cameron's or ho would not have stayed there throe years. The witness Langdon had also spoken of the roughness of the

food at Mr Cameron's. Tho fact- was that Mr Cameron's was recognised as a place to which prodrcaJs returned after their spree; or, as Mr' O'Halloran had put it, when they wero suffering a recovery from the ''city fever." For many years Mr Cameron had taken large mumibors of this chee of worker, and if ho was doing work of that description the place would necessarily be rough; it was rough because the men who wont there wero rough. Ho (Mr Jones) had been through all the accommodation at Mr Cameron's, and had seen tho class of men employed and it would be impossiblo, or practically so, for Mr Cameron to have done anything else but what he had done. Evidence as to the class of men employed by Mr Cameron had been given by Langdon who, referring to tho custom of charging the nicii Cor dining utensils, had stated that 'tho ewagger would get hold or them if you did not take care of them" ; so that tho practice had been adopted in self-protecton; but evidence had shown that vrhilo a nominal charge was made, it was never collected; it was simply a regulation for tho purpose of stopping the thieving propensities of the swaggers. After Mr Cameron hud stated that anyone could go and inspect his place, Mr Konuedy had spout a day on the station. Mr Kennedy: That is not right. Mr Jones: Well you spent a parr- of a day theret Continuing, he said that one would have expected some results l'roin that visit, but there had been none. Mr Thorn: He was quite satisfied! Mr Jones :Yes, quite satisfied': otherwise- one would have expected that Mr Kennedy would have gone into the box. and the fact he did not, and that he brought uo wii-•nt-fscs wrt'h him to £riv<* evidence in connection with Mr Cameron's, was strong presumptive proof that no evidence was obtainable. The two men who had been on Mr Cameron's and who had given evidence were not the men who should have been called to prove Dickie's statements; Dickie himself should have been recalled. Mr Jones went on to say thafc a man like Dickie who made the huge mistake between ''five years ago" and "eighteen years ago"' was one whose evidence was not very reliable; a man might make such a difference when figuring on a slate, but was not likely to mate such a mistake in his memory. The evidence proved that Mr Cameron's place was rough, but that was the fault of the men who went there, and not :>ir Cameron ; tho last mentioned had given a list of articles of food supplied- that list was before the Board and snowed that he provided the best of food and that it. was plentiful in quantity. Another witness had given evidence regarding the preparation of r. mince at Mr Cameron's, and the Board wae asked to took on the method of preparation as very disgusting; he held, however, _ that that impression would be conveyed , by the witness's manner in giving the evidence. Most of them had miuco <»f the samcieseription for breakfast sometime*, and geti-

erally he found it hotter than the joint from which it had been cvt v The only other statement made regarding food was "on one table there was a cruet and on the other there was none, and even if the tucker was. the same tlip, feeling shown was very bad" ; also ''tlie food -was not varied enough" ; but the witness did not state that the. food was bad; so far as he (Mr Jones) could gather, it was the eanie food that the farmer got himself. AX UNPROVED CASE. That was all the evidence called by the Union to substantiate the extraordinary statements made by Mr Kennedy in his evidence, and when it was considered that the enquiry had laeted so long a period and lvid visited so many centres, it went to prove that the lot oi the farm labourer in Canterbury was vr-ry. very satisfactory in— deed, especially when not a single instance* had been brought to prove that the food conditions wcro bad. He had intended quoting extensively from the evidence to show that those conditions were absolutely satisfactory, font he* had nothing to destroy; if the Union had brought evidence"to show that the food was had, ho would have felt justified in making the- quotations referred to. but- as tho Union had failed to substantiate the wiH statements jnado it woii!<l be waste of time to do so. ' CHARITABLE AID IN TOWN AND COUNTRY. He had ascertained from the Charitable Aid Hoard whatf the conditions were in the country so far as charitable aid was concerned., and ho had found that in the whole of that part Oi Canterbury from Kaikouru to ..,.> Rangitata River, outside the c'.\x cl Christchurch, there were, only t\vo'im>:i getting charitable aid because ;':;-r earnings were- insufficient; taking uk; same .<irea, which included the counties ot Kaikoura, Cheviot, Amnri. Ashli\y and Selwyn, the suburbs of Christchurch (Papanui. Belfast end Adding- *? n ); a .' lc * tno boroughs of R-angiora. Kaiapoi and Ashburton, he had found that the charitable aid given over tho whole of that wide area amounted to only £28 Oβ 6d per week; whilst in Christchurch elono the amount epent weekly in charitable aid was £44 14s fid. Consequently the amount spent in Christchurch was getting pretty we'll on to double the. amount that was spent in the whole of the district from Kaikoura to the Rangitata. That was further proof that the condition of the country worker wos exceptionally good. It they could get at tho rock bottom of the truth, thero was moro poverty among co.mo of the smaller fanners in Canterbury than amongst the labourers; ho felt absolutely certain on that point, from the enquiries he had made. PLOUGHMEN'S WAGES. Mr Jones then proceeded to analyse the evidence given as to ihe «■»;•<» ot' ploughmen, and stated that tho wages paid tho witnesses brought by the I'iiion were as follows:—Two at 20s. six at 22s (xl, six at 255. two at

-27.i Gd (cno for swamp ploughing and the other was v witness who was practically an under-manager),.two at aos without found but with other , perquisites. The ploughmen called by the farmers' representatives had received wages as follows:—Three at 20s, one at 2ls, four at 22s 6d, six at 2os, pno at 27e 6d (part time camping out), ono at 30s (not found), one at 3os (not found), ono at £71 106 per annum (with found), ono at £90 per annum (not found). Farmers who had given evidence had stated that they paid wages as follows:—Eleven at 20s, ono i at 225, ten at 22s Gd. sixteen, at 2os. I four at 27s Oti. and ono the I following rates per annum:—£7B. £80, I £!>->, £7',). and £90. Taking all tha I witnesses, the wages paid were as folkws:—Kifteca at 20s. one at 21s. oreat 225, twenty at 22s Gd. tAventy-cicht nt 2os, .veve:f at 27s Gd. one at 30s, two at 30.i who found themselves but had otho-r privileges, one at 35s who found himself, and one each at tho I following yearly wages:—£7l 10> (with I found). .£7o, £60 (without found). £00 j and £Do. As to ploughmen's hours, he contended that the" evidence had show:- that eight hour* daily in tight I chains was the general rule. As to the extra payment demanded by the I nion of 2s Gd ncr week lor each additional horse driven above, three, lie I said tliat the Union's witnesses had . been able to &t>eak without bias an the i question, a.> scarcely any of them had I driven more, than four "horses: coneeI qiiontly thoir testimony wa.s theoretical rather than practical: the farmers' witnesses, on the other hand, speaking from practical exuerienoe." had stated that with the addition of a seat on the plough, they preferred to drive six horses. Mr Jones commented on ; the peculiar fact that scarcely aaiy of the Union's witne.jves had seen ploughs with fcpats on them : that he said, was probably due to- the fact that so many of them were new arrivals; it was. however, common throt'chout Canterbury to have. spats r.n plouchs. As ono who had had experience of-' working both clas?rs of plouchs. he could say that there war; no comparison between working one with a seat and on? witlrout. Mr Kennedy had laughed at tho mention of a ca.«c where a man rode on a plough and read a book at the some time: but ho could assure him that that was the- ease. ARGUMENTS FOR. INCREASED WAGES. Tho Union; had brought forward no evidence to prove that ploughmen were getting too small a wage at present; or that tho work was -worth more than was. being paid for it at present. Ono witness considered that he should get "an increase of 2s 6d yearly," .in which caftc, if he reached 100 yeans of age, he. would be getting a very decent wage; another contended that "the employer could afford to pay more," but that -was not proof that the work ! was worth more; another had pointed i out that. the. men Jiad taken decreased tt-aces during tho years oP depression, I and though wages had increased, they had not increased in proportion to the tanners profits. On the other hand, they had the evidence of Mr SomervilJe, who had been a worker himself, and who calculated that with snonev wages, harvest bonus and privileges, the. country worker earned something over 8s per day. Mr Horrell had expressed tho opinion that <the best paid man in Cunterburv was tho wwkly hand on a farm." The TTnion could not urge as a reason for increased wages that, -the cost- of living, fond been increased, for that increase, if any, ,h<ad boon passed em to the farmer, and could be urged iby the farmer ac a reason why he dhould pay reduced wages.. It had been objected that the statement, that the average annual ! wa.qo cf the male town -worker -was £81, did not- put the position properly, as male- -workers included boys and appironfcices; .but sic • urgued that the wages paid a boy on <% farm were fax higher than those paid in towns, and that .a man of 25 years of age on a j farm, was much better off than a town ; worker of the same ago. The ■wages pjiid in Cuinitefbury for farm work, as compared with those paid in other I countries for edmihw work, -were the highest in tßio world; they were a long way ahead of those oadd in Australia, j and as the Australian farmer- competed with tlie- N«w Zealand farmer, j any burden placed on the last-men-tioned would put him at a disadva.n----i tage. He further argued that there was still the diffieultv of cLassifying country workers; and that there- would never exist any necessity for fixing the wages of country workers, for their wages were largely ruled by tihe wages paid in the city; if a man could got better wnges in the city he would scon diriit there; but the wages in tho country m.ust always be relatively I higher than those in tho city, ©tihefw;ee they would never'he able to gel men to stay. He claimed that «ft present country wages were relatively higher than iliose pnid in the city. As to the demand for payment for drivjn/' extra, hci-sffi. he .pointed out that? when time off caused by b^d wira.ther was taken into accoiurt, the- Union's demand wee equivaka.t to Ss Cd per liour fo.r grooming mi extra horse. EFFECT OF A.\ AWARD ON PRODUCTICN. Tlio Board would be glad to hear that ho was getting towards tho conclusion of his remarks, but he wished to touch briefly on wliat it meant to tho farmers ,of the. Dominion if an award were made that would interfere with production. Mr Jones then cited tho remarks made by Mr 3fustico Cooper and Mr Justice Chapman in several cases which were, before the Arbitration Court in which no awards were made. Tho citations were similar to those made by Mr Acland in his summing-up speech. Continuing. Mr Jones said that if production were diminished it was bound to affect tho prosperity of the country, and it would be tho working population that would feel it first. The unanimous opinion of every farmer called throughcut tho enquiry had been that, any award would diminish production": such was the opinion of Messrs Talßot, J. C. X. Grigg, G. W. LeadJey, Ashwell, E. Evans, Hortrell and "VV. Lowrio, men who had thought their way through the problem, men who wore not likely to go before the Board and attempt to frighten it with bogey tales, and men who had carefully studied tho matter. Tho point was one that the Board must -weigh with thfl utmost c?ro, and it would, no doubt, give due consideration to the enormous interests involved in the I>ominion and to the far-reaching effects that oven trifling alterations would have. The. present s3 T stem liad placed them in the fore-front of the world; that was the system they were" fighting for, and good reasons must bo shown for some alteration; such reasons, he submitted, bad not been shown. SHEEP v. GRAIN*. Tho margin between sheep raising and wheat-growing had been shown throughout the enquiry to bo very small, and the wholo question, even now, with no award, was hanging in tho balance as to which was going to pay the better, and the tendency was in the direction of a diminished prey duction. It had been argued that the enhanced price of wheat would oompensate for any increase in wages, but that was a great mistake; Australia would always be the barrier to Now Zealand farmers getting big prices for ihoir wheat, except when there was a drought in Australia. Sir Joseph Ward liad recognised this in his latestdelivered financial statement, and when referring to tho proposal to remove tho existing duties on flour and wheat had said that to remove the duties would mean the. death of the wheat-growing industry in Xew Zealand. Ho (Mr - Jonee) argued that any small additional cost put on the cost of growing wheat in Canterbury would have the same ri*uit as the removal

of the duties. Mr Jones then quoted somewhat lengthily from the evidence 'of Messrs Lowrie, Grant, Talbofc. Grigg, John Alien, Peryniaai, Evans, Williams, Stevenson, F. Horrell, Warren, Osborno and Clothier on:the subject of the decreased amount paid for labour according to whether certain, crops were grown, or the land used for dairying or sheep-raising. Mr Lowri© had'stated that '"he had simply put the position to show that the country should think twice- before it played with the conditions that obtain"; and Mr Evans had emphasised the- fact that Canterbury raised four-fifths of the -wheat for the Dominion. DESTINY OF WHEAT GROWING. The Board seemed to hold the destiny of the wheat growing industry of New Zealand in its hands. It -would mean, if an .award were made that forced , the. wheat-growing industry out of existence, that a' million sovereigns would have- to be sent out of the country every year to pay for the wheat consumed * in the Dominion; that would have a bad effect on the trade of tho Dominion and on tho community. i±e cited evidence to ehonr jthat an award would similarly affect other crops which could bo profitably grown under existing conditions, hut could>not bo profitably produced under the conditions of th« proposed -award. He also dealt with the diminished expenditure on labour that would follow the replacement of cropping by sheep-raising. He asserted'that whilst the farmer would bo a heavy loser by any award that would limit production, th© bulk of tho loss must ultimately' fall on the working man. Ho asked the _Board to bear in mind that the Nm> Zealand farmer was already heavily handicapped owing to the distance of tho Dominion from the world's markets. BOY LABOUR, OX FARMS. He contended that conditions in the farming industry/ co far as the .-worker was concerned, ,wcro quite as satisfactory as they could be Trade, con* sldcring the position of the industry. Tho Union had shown absolutely .no reason why. present oonditior.3' should b<> altered. Ho had not touched on the question of boy labour because the wajps asked by the Union were so ridiculously high and no necessity existed for the Union to take any action in the matter. If anyone was overpaid in New Zealand ii was the boy on the farm. THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM. The arbitration system was., at present, in a very unsatisfactory condition; they had the Prime' Minister declaring that the minimum wo«e principle was wrong and requireC alteration': they had the workers defying the Arbitration Court and tlw country had no power to make them work; further, ho contended, that, if an award affecting tho farming industry were mnd'e, the p-unishment would be all on the one side, ond that it would' be impossible- to got et tho workers. THE EVIDENCE COMPARED. The, Union had called seventeen witnesses, who stated that there was feneral dissatisfaction; the farmers ad called eighty-two, who testified to the contrary, and two of the Union's witnesses had given ainiflar testimony. Seventeen witnesses called by the farmers had stated that present conditions in the dairying industry were satisfactory; the Union called two witnesses who testified to'the contrary. Forty-nino farnu>rs' witnesses and three of the Union's witnesses had given evidence in favour of the contract system; nine Union witnesses were against it. "Twenty-five farmers' witnesses had stated that the Saturday half-holiday was impracticable; eleven Union jvitnWses wcre'/»P tho opnosite belief. Of the' fifty-five witnesses called l»y .the. "Union ten fol-; li>wed occupations other than farming; and the farmers hn<l called fifty jjenu-

in© farm labourers against the Unioa'e fort3 T -two or forty-three. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. If au award were made, it obuld not be carried out.- The farmer, dealt with perishable goods which must- be saved at the ri-ht moment; unlike a coal mine, in. which, the coal remained though the workers were on strike, the farmer .had to deal with Nature, "which ■was producing all the time>' and be could not serve two masters—-jNature and tho Arbitration Act. All the evidence went to show that it was impossible to farm profitable under,set conditions. Mr Evans had" quoted the Emperor Constantino in euwport of the contention that history proved'that no attempt had been made to resulato agricultural work. The.-. Australian Commonwealth, nrobably the mest democratic country in 1 the world,, had , recently been making -an Arbitration! Act. and in the definition of "industry" it was -provided'that' the '-term, was not to include "personsyencaged in domestic service, in agricultural, horticultural or dairying pursjyta." That opinion was backed b-c- the opinions of the late Mr Seddon. "and the late Sir John SfcKenzie. 'The whole weight of the evidence that had: been adduced by the farmers had been to prov© that their position, at present was satisfactory, that what they wanted was to t>e left alone, that the only solution of the difficulty <before> the Board was that the country should he allowed to po, on and progress ,a; in the part, unhampered; and "unrestricted, and that "by doing so'it; would be in the interest of the farmers, the workers, and the whole community. (Aipplause.) ' ■•■,'■">■■-,■■•..■•

Mr Jones concluded. Ms address* at 3.20 p.m.. and the Board Rhortlv afterwards ndioiirned till 10.30 a.m. today, wb-e-n Mr Thorn will open his summing-up sraech. ■ , :