The Dominion. THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1908. AN UNPRACTICAL SPEECH

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 227, 18 June 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1908. AN UNPRACTICAL SPEECH

In several respects'the speech delivered by Dit. Findlay last night upon the Arbitration Act is of considerable value, but tho people who are not' repelled by its length, its theoretics, and its figures will have no. difficulty in concluding that it is of little value as a practical contribution to the real questions that are agitating the public mind. Dr. Findlay made the mistake of treating the problem that faces this country as one simply of economics, instead of approaching it as being for the.most part a problem in human nature. In his most interesting address he excluded human nature altogothor from his calculations, and dived deeply into the profoundest depths of economic theory. As a result, no mariner in a tempest ever obtained from a treatiso upon thai,'urography less comfort and assistance than the public will derive from tho learned lccture that, wc fear, must have been rather wasted upon the Liberal and Labour Federation. "No solution of the problem can bo hoped for," said Dr. Findlay, in his rather pompous prelude, " until the facts are. dispassionately ascertained and consid-. ered, and until ways and means can be seen." We hoped, upon reading so far, that wo were about to bo told whether the Act is to bo abolished, or, if it is only to bo amended, how iti will bn timoiKted bo that it will be truly operative and

binding upon the people who have been encouraged by the Government to uso it for all it is worth and thereafter treat it with contempt. Unfortunately, the speech set out at oncc to discuss " tho most difficult, the most vital, and the most urgent question of the day" in terms that leave the public still waiting for an answer upon the practical questions that are causing great uneasiness to all employers of labour. Dr. Findlay appeared throughout his speech to make his immediate objective an economic Utopia, but most sensible people realise that that is as contemptuous of human striving and human thought as is the secret of organic life. How entirely Dn. Findlay is out of touch with actualities is very evident from his un-der-rating of the rebellious temper of Labour, and his very unfair references fcojhe serious view that the Press of the Dominion has taken of tho past eighteen months' disturbances. It was not " the very common error of measuring tho importance of incidents as well as of individuals by tho extent of their noisy obtrusion upon public notice " that led the Press into- giving so much attention .to "the vehemence of every little knot of discontents." The independent section of the Press founded its alarm on the Government's desperate strangling of the law, and the consequent liberation of the forces of Labour revolt from end to end, of the Dominion, as exhibited in the instant and violent approval that every outbreak of lawlessness reccivod from tho labour organisations. Dr.. Findlay could hardly have used a more inappropriate figure than his comparison of the hostile critics of the Government's maladministration of the Act with the quacks who " aim ohiofiy at persuading people thoy have got the disease rather than offer any roliablo proof that it is curable." Surely it is not these critics who are the exponents of economic quackery. The greater part of the speech is of course a repetition of the arguments used by the speaker at 'Wanganui, although the interesting and statistically valuable tables of wages and profits are now. In seeking to refer the increase in the cpst of living to tho increase in rent, Dk. Findlay forgot that such blame as can bo lifted from the Arbitration Act in this matter must be placed upon tho shoulders of tho Government whose administrative extravagance and unnatural borrowings have caused half the evils that call for removal. As at Wanganui, so last night, Dn. Findlay avoided any close reference to the Government's refusal to administer the law in an impartial spirit. Nor did he hold out any promise of an amended administration. Nor did ho forecast any obviously efficient means whereby the awards made under tho Act shall be made really binding. Ho omitted, that is, to say, to give tho public any satisfaction upon the points which agitate it almost to tho exclusion of all others. We must note —since it is evidence of the hand-to-mouth methods of the Government's handling of tho whole question—wie strange contradiction between the Attorney-Gen-eral's present views upon the imprisonment of .strikers and the views ho expressed in the statement ho issued on March 9, 1907. To-day he says: —

It was true that tho Court of Appeal had decided that by a process of attachment strikers may be imprisoned for non-payment of lines imposed on them, but this , remedy was' not provided by tho Act, ami sprang from ail old principlo of' our law. liven this method was exceedingly clumsy and circuitous, but ho was opposed to imprisonment for taking part in a strike. Last year lie took a very different view: I am informed that tho fines already imposed amount to .over £700, and it is quite clear that if each 'man who joins in the strike may be lined £10, as is allowed by the Act, and in default of payment may bo sent to gaol' for a substantial term, tho Act furnishes a deterrent which most responsible and sensible men would not treat' lightly. Can it then bo said that in this second test of tho enforceability of its awards the Act has broken down? .... My duty mainly lies in advising the Government. Tho Minister for Labour and the Acting-Premier havo both. spoken, and their determination to enforco the law has already been unequivocally declared.

Wo have not space here to discuss his exposition of the new "gain-sharing" scheme that appears to be contemplated by the Government, and we must postpone comincnfc on that and other points of the speech. The idea is, of . course, a most excellent one in many respects, but its very complexity seems to contain a suggestion that tho Government 1 will not seriously attempt to embody it in the law. But what now idea will guarantee even-handed' justice if it is linked up with a compulsion that Labour, relying upon the Government's need of- its vote, can defy at will 1