THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AGAIN.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 250, 15 July 1908, Page 6

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AGAIN.

If Dit. Findlay but knew it, he is doing himself a .disservice, ahd helping the public hardly at all, by the enormous Verbosity of his speeches on industrial arbitration. It is to his position and to tho place ho has taken in tho recent controversy that he is indebted for tho undeserved space that wo devote to-day to u summary of his' three hours' oration in tho'Legislative Council yesterday; If we had-desired to suppress his views, so far as our rcadors aro concerned, we should simply have printed his speech in full. Yet iii a three-hour speech a Minister hiust say something calling for notice.. What will first strike tho public is the towering self-confidence of the observation that " the social sentiment of this country, whatever might be tho superficial indications of speeches and leading -articles, was against the repeal of the Arbitration Act." What means, really, has the Attorney-General of knowing what the public thinks 1 And in any case, \yhy do ho and his colleagues, in almost tho same breath as they declare that' the' public desire tho retention of tho Act, discUEß" the possibility of public ppinioh forcing the l'opeal. "He would like," he said, in another portion of his speech, "to introduce a differentiated wage, but Labour would not consent to that." How tho Attorney-General, discovered that, and failed to discover that all fair-minded men# object to the-injus-tices produced by tuo Act, is a mystery. . But the party politician's oar only ; hears some sounds, and is deaf to others—ho suffers, we may say, from selective deafness. And this brings us to the position of Dr. Findlay in respect of his famous definition of a strike. He defonds that definition, and he uses the old rhetorical device by which tho party politician seeks to answer criticism of his public actions by a defence of his private feelings. "My position as Attorney-General," he said, '• is a matter of honour with me as much ar, the position of any editor." Editors will be gratefulfor the implied testimonial, To paraphrase the roply of a famous newspapor to a certain Bishop 'who took up a stand similar 'to that adopted by Dr. Findlay, we may say that it is typical of tho party man to confuse tho private and official' virtues in, this' way. /An Attorney-General may be a prejudiced party politician, and still ,be a good,, conscientious man; if as a good party politician ho is not independent of expediency he runs the' risk of being an imperfect Attorney-General. And in any case the charge was, not that he gave an opinion based on expediency, but that, having, given it, he interposed himself , between the Arbitration ,Court and its duty, that he gagged and bound the law. We hope that tho public , will realise, the gravity of the statement'that the, time must come when the law will a- strike "as a social offence, irrespective of the existence or non-exis-tence of'an award." This is plain Collectivist Socialism in essence. It was an unhappy figure of the Attorney-General's, that " tho Government would steer its course according to its own knowledge-of the rocks and channels, and not according to shouts from the. shore." Wo aro all in the same boat, unfortunately for his analogy, even if we concede the necessary metaphorical licence, it must be pointed out that " the shouts on shore'' aro tho only things tho brave mariners have got in the way of compass, sun and stars. As a matter of fact, the Government yill listen to " shouts from tho shore," and the courso that it will steor may be guessed from the appeal to Labour not to break away and " to take note of tho Financial Statement with its mftny forecasts of benefits to be conferred on the workers." So, even if-De. Findlay did not explain tho industrial situation, he at any rate threw a flood of light on tho Budget!