The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1908. THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 161, 1 April 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1908. THE ARBITRATION ACT.

...One would liardly imagine that the present is a ■.■■very appropriate time for defending the Arbitration Act,: and extolling it-., as an efficient piece of legislative machinery, yet this is what the Hon. J. R. Sinclair, M.L.G., lias done in an article appearing , in the " Otago Daily; Times."; Mr. (Sinclair's article is a model of fairness and moderation, but, of course, lie has failed to prove a contention that actual events have disproved within the past few weeks. He contends that the Act has " accomplished substantially all that it could ever- have been expected that it could effect," which is a truism that anyone might utter of any Act in any circumstances at any time, What Mr. Sinclair means is that the Act has " a, heavy balance in its favour,"' and that, within the limits set by natural con-' ditions, it has -maintained ' industrial i peace. He urges very properly that I it cannot be condemned because it has failed to prevent strikes, just as the laws against murder and theft are not failures because- men continue to kill and to steal; but nobody whose opinion is of any consequence has ever ! indicted the Act on such an untenable ground as this. What has been urged against, the so far as its efficiency is concerned, is that, unlike the criminal laws jjnentioned, it does riot effectively punish the offences whioli it exists to punish. . ■ To this contention Mr. Sinclair has a singular reply. It is quite true, he saj-B,- that the Act, while fully enforceable against an employer, is " in some cases " not enforceable against a worker. But this difficulty, he argues, is common to other 'laws. " If a worker has no means you cannot levy a fine. This may show that.justice, as administered .by the Court, does not work even-handedly, but it, is inevitable. . . The law, does all it can do. It gives him (the dissatisfied holder of an unsatisfied judgment) a remedy. . . -No law provides means to answer its judgments. So it is with

the Arbitration Court.. The difficulty is inherent. There will always, unfortunately for themselves, be workers who have no means. It does not leave the' Court open to the charge of not dealing evenly/' In further discussion, Mr. Sinclair points out that the Act provides for imprisonment, but these provisions can be enforced "only with in > certain limits—limits which are marked, not by the deficiencies of the_ Act, but by considerations from which no community can escape. Where only a few have to be dealt with, they may be imprisoned . . . but where large numbers have made themselves liable to imprisonment, a practical difficulty is met with" — namely, 'the instincts of humanity, and the limited gaol accommodation. We may leave Mr. Sinclair's line of argument here, only noting that he considers that what the Act really can do is a sufficient reason for keeping it on the Statute Book, even althougn, in his- opinion, it should never be enforced to the point of imprisoning workers. Put briefly, therefore, Mr. Sinclair's - defence of the Act amounts to a plea for its retention in recognition of the good results that it can achieve.if it is' not contemptuously flouted. . ;

This, of course, is no defence at all. If lie did nothing, else, Mr.. Sinclair demonstrated that/ unless it is rigidly administered to tjie very last letter the Act cannot provide even-handed justice.- . We cannot conceive liow. : a case can he made out for the retention of an Act that is by . administration rendered inequitable, or for the retention of the method; of administration that produces this/ want Much 'is written nowadays about what Mr. Sinclair calls a healthy; public opinion against the atrocity' of but th'e Blackball affair has shown quite clearly that the suspension of the last powers of the Act is a standing. ■ invitation to the Trades Unions to use for an \mfair advantage popular dislike of imprisonment for-strikers and the want of gaol accommodation. Either _ the Act must be, fully enforced, or it must be so varied as to remove the stain of inequity. Personally, we disapprove the idea of imprisoning men into, surrendering, a fundamental human right; or, rather, we disapprove a regulative law which , can only avoid the perpetration of injustice by thus imprisoning men. Mr, Sinclair, thinks, like most other, people, that " if Unions undertook; to see awards obeyed as a condition of membership, it would' get rid of the difficulty of . dealing in court with 1 members."; The better way is to entrust the exaction of obedience to other i'hands than the Trades Unions', let the condition of membership be obedieince to awards, but'let the power' of disqualification and. cancelling rest in a statute. This is Mr. W. Fraser's suggestion, which we discussed , the other/day. We believe that public opinion will shortly grow into an endorsement of Mr. Eraser's idea as the only_ practicable' > way of securing obedience without haying; recourse to extreme penalties .against offenders, if this idea were adopted, it would be unnecessary to retain those penal provisions which all dislike,, but; the non-. enforcement of which places the employer and 1 the principles of-equity entirely at the mercy of lawlessness.