PARLIAMENT AND THE STRIKE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14823, 14 November 1913, Page 8

PARLIAMENT AND THE STRIKE.

The public is so thoroughly conversant with tho facts of tho strike and with tho issue involved that it cannot bo deceived into believing that Parliament should make some foolish attempt at special legislation with tho express purposo of ending the trouble. In tho first place, thq trouble is ending itself, and in the second placo there is no legislation which can compel tho Federation to surrender or tho employers to submit to Federation rule. Wo recur to tho matter in order to deal with an attempt which has been made to find a precedent for tho undoubtedly harmful activities of tho Leader of the Opposition. There is already evidence that even a section of the Opposition supporters outsido Parliament have resented Sir Joseph Ward's action very strongly. It? was-obvious enough to everyone that whatever his motive may have been, his first appearance as- a Federation apologist could only encourago the strikers in' their war against tho community,. That it. has had this result is already obvious. Sir Joseph Ward is already regarded by organisations supporting tho striko as. their agent arfd defender in tho House. It is sufficient to cite one example. The Central Strike Committee of Auckland has written to him making charges against special constables, which deservo only such credence as is duo to statements coming from a quarter in which truth, good faith, and lawful conduct are openly declared to be things of no consequence to men on strike. They ask him to "ventilate the matter "on the floor of tho House.- The Strike Committee can hardly be blamed for supposing that tho Leader of the Opposition will do the work in Parliament which Messrs Webb and Payne are too violent and downright to do quite so effectively as a- politician of long experience. .

The Opposition newspapers have realised that if it has made an impression on the strike organisations. Sir Joseph Ward's attitude h&s also made an impression on the general public, and they are accordingly very uneasy. The latest attempt to find a way out for their indiscreet leader takes the form of an appeal to "the attitude of Parliament during tho strike of 1890. After that strike had been proceeding for some weeks, Mr Perceval (as he tLen. was) intercepted Supply by moving that "with a \-iew to bringing the wage- " payers and wage-earners to a settle"ment," the Government should call a conference .of employers and labour associations to deviso a means of obviating the loss and misery that might bo occasioned by such disputes in future. The motion, which was carried by 51 votes to 11, was seconded by Mr Jas. Allen. From this fact, wo are asked to deduce that-the majority in Parliament, and the vast majority of the public, are wrong in blaming the Leader of the Opposition to-day. To draw such a deduction it is necessary to ignore every essential point in the two very widely differing cases. In 1590 the strike was based on an actual dispute concerning wages and conditions of labour; tho present striko has for its basis only the claim of a small body of admittedly lawless bosses to destroy arbitration unionism, and to crush the community's rights by sheer force. In 1890 there was no Arbitration Act; in 1913 there is an elaborate muss of legislation devised for the settling of industrial troubles. In. 1890 there was

ample room for a compromise in the elements of the dispute; to-day the public and Parliament are faced by the fact that, as the "Sydney Morning Herald" puts it, there can be * ; no com- " promise between the rights of the com- " munity and the demands of industrial "anarchists." It must also be remembered that what Mr . Jas. Allen and 50 other members of the House

approved was a conference of the parties. In' the present case Mr Maesey arranged for conferences without any assistance from Parliament. Finally, with regard to the right of members to discuss the strike, we feel bound to point out that in 1890 noboay was so foolish as to jump up to initiate a disenseion with an ex part© speech, full of inaccuracies, based on some information alleged to have been supplied by some unknown person, and richly garnished with the phrases in vogue with Federation orators. The "precedent" of ISOO is no precedent at all.