RAILWAY SERVANTS AND THE FEDERATION OF LABOUR.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 14306, 18 March 1912, Page 6

RAILWAY SERVANTS AND THE FEDERATION OF LABOUR.

Tho report of tho Conference of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was sonnvhat, involved, and we nr* glad to Jeani from Mr Hampton, one of tho delegates, that we wero mistaken in supposing that the Conference endorsed

the policy of the Federation of Labour. "What the Conference resolved to commend to its members was Professor Milk's ''unity scheme,'.' which is different from the Federation of Labour. Wo are bound to say, however, that we do not see how any Government rof.ld agree to the railway servants joining even Professor Miils's organisation. Mr Hampton is uo doubt quite sincere when he says that "there is not tho remotest " possibility of a railway strike tuLwg " place." It is very possible also ihbl Professor Milk has "condemned «syndi- ,: calism and the strike as being out of "date methods of warfare." Wo find, however, in the "Proposals for secur- " ing the industrial and political union "of all the Labour organisations of •'•' New Zealand," which he has issued as the basis of his scheme, the following remarks:—• "The work of tho Conciliation Board and the Arbitration Court has been tho subject of controversy together with tho further use of the power of tho strike. "This plan (i.e., Professor Milk's j unity scheme) frankly admits tho j limitation of theso bodies, and tho defects in tho laws governing them. It asks for political power in order to remedy theso wrongs. It seeks to provide fov using to the -utmost theso agencies when tho unions involved so wish, and in case of the refusal of tho Court to act, or whenever tho Court is made an instrument of oppression, instead of relief, then it not only refuses to surrender, hut pledges tho whole power of tho organisation of all the unions to enforce justice in tho behalf of .such groups of workers. If uxder such circumstances a Btrtke shalti bk found to be tub only hem£dy, tirex it is not only authorised, but the whole poweit of the workers of the whole of the Dominion will be at its back." In another paragraph Professor Mills says: —"No ono would want a strike " except as a last resort. Should it " become necessary, then there should " bo at its hack tho strength that shall " mako certain its success." If there is any meaning in language, we take it that Professor Miils's idea is that if a group of workers failed to get what they thought they were entitled to from the Arbitration Court, they would be authorised to strike, and would be supported by the full strongth of his organisation. Other federated bodies, among them tho Enilway Servants, if they joined, would be liable to bo called out to join the strike, if it was thought desirable. We do not see how any fair-minded and sensible body of men, such as most of tho railway servants are, can claim that they should bo allowed to retain all their special advantages of continuity of employment, regular promotion, superannuation allowances, and so forth, and yet at the .sarno time to join an organisation with the ends and objects we have described. . Wo have commented more than oi'.ce on the unfairness (to say tho least of it) oT putting settlers on land which has no adequate access to rail or port. Tho "New Zealand Herald" draws attention to what seems to bo a particularly glaring case of tho kind. A hloHc of land is being opened eastward of the Main Trank line, from Otorohanga. According to the "Herald," the land is excellent, tho sections suitable in size, a'ld tho land is being offered tinder the optional system. But against these advantages is the fact that tho block is fiom thirty to thirty-five miles from tho railway, and only a little over twenty miles of this distance is roacfod; tho rest of tho distanco has to le covered by a rough pack-horse track. "It is bad enough," says the "Herald," for the Government to open land so far from a railway without providing a road for the whole distanco, but tho worst feature about the matter is the fact that between tho railway and the land offered for settlement, there is a continuous stretch of unoccupied nativo and Crown land, all of it well adapted for settlement, and mo3t of it within easy distance of the railway." That land miles from the railway should to settled before land close to it, savour* of "Alice in Wonderland" or one of Gilbert's operas. It is no wonder that the Auckland province declared emphatically against the Ward Government.

Tho indirect responsibility of a Government that settles peoplo on tho land on these conditions is very heavy. Wo published the other day,some harrowing details of tho sufferings of women in the back-blocks in time of confinement. By inducing people to settle on land thirty miles from a railway, with only a bridle track for a portion of the distance, the Government is helping to cause such tragedies, vvhen, of course, it should bo doing its utmost to prevent them. Pioneering always has its hardships, biit there is no reason why they should bo added to unnecessarily.

In a recent article on "Auckland Stock Exchange methods, "The Press" incidentally remarked that there was one stock that apparently refused to be "beared," namely, Talismans, and it was in attempting what in his caso proved to be impossible that one Auckland sharebroker came- to grief. It has been suggested to us that our remarks wero taken by the enterprising operators in the north as a challenge, and that the recent fall in Talismans is their reply. It is further asked if wo will not "dare" them to put up the price of Waihis, in tho hope that certain unfortunato shareholders who bought the stock, believing it to be almost equal to a trust investment, may breathe a little more freely. We see tho point, but cannot undertake the responsibility of "daring" the Auckland Stock Exchange to do anything.