The Dominion. FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1903. THE INDUSTRIAL CRISIS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 240, 3 July 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1903. THE INDUSTRIAL CRISIS.

The continued silence of the Prime Minister respecting the position of our industrial legislation is a most disturbing fact. The public, fully alive tothe situation, is waiting for the' immediate action that can. alone save the Minister for Labour's outspoken speech from being considered either a rash absurdity or part of a carefully-planned political shuffle. In Parliament yesterday vhe'only reference to the Act that is worth mentioning was. in Mr. Sinclair's good br' unpractical speech. There is nothing whatever 'to be gained by the utterance of pious hopes and sad regrets, just as; we are perfectly certain, there is nothing to be gained by appeals, like that of a Christchurch journal yesterday, to the patriotism arid statesmanship of .' the tradesunion leaders. The situation to bovdealt with is a perfectly plain one: it is not the "restoration of .the workers', confidence " in the Act or in the Court that is. required, or a patching-up of the Act into something against whioh men will never rebel. Mr. Sinclair shattered that delusion in : two short sentences yesterday. •' Mil. Pugg's whole purpose," ho said, "was to restore the-L-t confidence of the M'orkcrs in the Court. But ought tho .workers; to have lost that confidence? They had confidence enough in the. Court so long as it gave them all they wanted." That is admirably said. It contains it complete critical summary of the past, and a guiding principle for the future. We note with satisfaction that the Christchurch Press and other leading newspapers are supporting our fixed: conviction that no system based on a permanent compulsion and coercion can possibly succted. With-the exception of Mr. W. Eraser's proposal, our own extension of it, and the adaptation of the Canadian system that we have advocated, not one o£ the schemes of amendment that have been put'forward is likely to prevent a trades-union from striking. The duty before tho Government is to repeal . ; the Act and let industry take its natural course, or, as we said the'other day, to introduce such amending' legislation as will "make a strike tho worst, instead of, a* it is at present, tho best, card that Labour can play." Ifou cannot compel a body of men to remain at work: for the sake of industrial peace, therefore, you must offer a very strong inducement to them-to obey any decree of tho Court.

The merits of the Canadian system have been frequently discussed in our columns, both before and after the date, during last summer, when the situation Became plainly acute. Thero the only compulsion—the Lemieux Act, as it is called, applies only to " public utility " industries—is a compulsion to abstain from a strike or a lockout until the dispute has been investigated and reported upon by a. Board appointed for the purpose. Tho publication of the Board's report ends all restraint upon the disputants. The Canadian Government, with' a modesty that the people recently rebuked' by Bishop Julius will be amazed at, realisod that the laws of human nature operating in older countries operated also in the Dominion, and they accordingly did not attempt to achieve tho impossible. Mon cannot bo prevented from striking. It is simple injustice thercfo'ro to 'constrain their employer in a hundred ways on tho pretence that they can. Wo had occasion 'some time ago to comment upon the penetration and shrewdness of the view taken of the industrial situation by Mr. Hobbs, the Chairman of the Canterbury Employers' Association. Praise-is again due to him for his comments on Mb. Millar's speech, as printed in our issue of yesterday. Mr. Hobbs believes that compulsory arbitration is no longer possible, and ho supported his opinion with this model of lucid and precise argument:, "The compulsory clauses of tho Act have lasted up till now, not because they are compulsory, but because the Act is giving the workers as much as, and perhaps more than,' they hoped they could obtain by direct negotiation with tho employers." Mr. llobbs suggests that the only way of settling industrial disputes ii by means of voluntary Conciliation Boards appointed on each side to settle disputes on their merits, any agreement ai rived at to last as long as it is acceptable to both parties. One thing is cer■tain t that unless compulsory, arbitration

and its subsequent constraints arc abolished, a serious injustice' will be inflicted on employers without any set-off in the way of a guarantee that there shall be no strikes.

Last year's Bill—excellent as are some o? its provisions—cannot effect move than a new method of arriving at the present deplorable position once more. By clinging desperately to the belief that compulsory arbitration as provided in the existing Act can produce happiness and peacc, the Government is merely playing into the hands of the Labour extremists. What is there in compulsory arbitration 'that makes tho Government disinclined to give it up? All that we know of it is that it leads to strife, confusion, injustice, and a hurtful decay of the traditional Anglo-Saxon reverence for law. Labour, as the interviews with Canterbury Labour leaders that we print to-day will make clear, is trading on this curious infatuation of Ministers and members of Parliament for a worthless idea.