The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1911. THE FAILURE OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1248, 5 October 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1911. THE FAILURE OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

The discussion which took place in tho House early yesterday morning upon tho Arbitration Court will probably in later years be referred to as the definite- beginning of the end of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. For tho preBcnfc, of course, those who are specially interested in keeping the Act on the Statute Book are doing their best to pretend that the Act is sound and beneficent and is supported by public opinion and by the,interests of industry. Being unable, however, to deny the fact that this measure has entirely lost its false reputation as a promoter of industrial peace and industrial progress, these people have had to find a scapegoat for the sins of the Act itself; and they think they have found a satisfactory scapcfoat_ in the presiding Judge. The [mister for Labour, who said lie had been the first man in the country to suggest that the President of the Court should be a Judge, thus explained his change of mind: "He thought a Judge's words would be 'accepted by any man, and would give satisfaction, _ but it had not proved so." Becoming more specific, he declared that "it was impossible for a lawyer to get out of legal methods," and that "what he objected to was that legal points were taken up, and tho men driven out of the Count." Mr. M'Laern, who said that tho leaders of labour id id not wish to sec the Act done away with, gave it as his opinion that "the bases of judgment must be equity and good conscience, and not the principles- of jurisprudence."

Now, neither Mn. Millar npr Sin. M'Laren is able to give a single instance of the happening of that which they want people to imagine has happened, namely, the use by the Judge of the forms of law to deny justice to the workers. Neither of them, apparently, understand the meaning of equity or of jurisprudence, and we advise them to find out if they wish to discuss this question usefully and fairly. The Judge has to abide by the law. Apparently he is an unjust Judge because he docs not break the rules in- favour of the unions. We all know what would be said if he went beyond tho law, or ignored it, in the interests of the othor side. ' The substitution of a layman for the Judgo as President is theoretically easy, but where would the Government obtain a layman who would satisfy all parties in such a position 1 l'or he would have to satisfy botli sides: it is no UEC fancying that a man biased in favour of tho unions would bo long tolerated. And even if a layman were appointed, he would have to bo governed by those "points of law" that so offend Mr. Miu.ar, whose commsnt, by tho way, is curiously reminiscent of the Attorney-General's famous denial of the right of appeal to a Judge under a certain clause -.of the Land and Income Assessment Act of 1007. The Attorney-General, it will be remembered, said a Government ofiicial would be freer to act honestly and fairly and reasonably than a Judge, because a Judge would bo trammelled by technical rules of law. It is intolerable that there

should bo a layman President who would be permitted to follow the law as laid down or ignore it just as he pleased. Such a position could not last three months. If the "legal points" are to be got rid of, they must be got rid of by a, complete amendment of the Act. The complaint of Mr. Millar and Mr. M'Lahen, although they do not seem to realise it, is a complaint against the Act itself. For our 'part we think industrial disputes ought certainly to be settled in man-to-man fashion, by friendly compromise and mutual fair dealing. The discussion in the Houk, instead of discrediting the Judge, really gave very strong support to the growing feeling in favour of the substitution of the Wages Board system or the Canadian Act for the Arbitration Act. In an editorial last Saturday week the Melbourne Age, which has for decades been tho leading Democratic newspaper _ in Australasia, had some observations on Wages Boards that arc very pertinent to the present discussion. The Wages Board, it said,

"aims at a sort of continuous conference between employers and employees in each trade. It hardly takes account in a definite, scientific way of variations in the standard and cost of living except in eo tar as the demands of labour fer increased wages orujiiLato in tho pressure of inCTeasisd prices for the cecessanes and comforts of life. Her.; comes in the very subtle complication that when any trade raises its wages it increases the cost of jiving for every other trade. A large and importa.it part of the struggle lor improved wages comes thus to bo an unconscious rivalry between the trades. The system of Vr'as?s Boards maltra no at tempt to touch this t'h/crny branch of the wages problem. Its principle is to let each trade look after itself, wliich it mil find quite a largo enough job. In connection with the Arbitration Court, it was hoped that this wider tribunal might be able to takq into account the wider issues fif the relation of one trade to all tho r«rt and to tho general public. As far as wo have gone, experience has shown that no Court is in. the least fitted for ao vast an (MHKimic undertaking as that of determining thooqnitab'e wage for every trade and profession, and for every branch of such. . '. . The grand initial advanfag-o »t the Bnard over the Court is that its mimibsrs know 0,1 l the practical details of its trade."

In condemning the retention of a Judge as President of the Arbitration Court, Me. Miliar doubtless wished to please the trade union leaders. He did not see that his condemnation of "legal points" is a condemnation of the system that must rest upon "legal points." He can get rid of these "legal points" by getting rid of the existing system; it need hardly be pointed out Uiat the country will not tolerate a layman President who is bidden, in effect, to carry out the Act just as he thinks fit. i The whole discussion in the House only emphasises, as we have said, the need for a radical change—a change that will really bo to the advantage of honest labour and greatly to the advantage of industry. It is another nail in the coffin of the Arbitration Act, which in a not distent future will be remembered only as a remarkable example of how in certain circumstances a tremendous legislative imposture can run for many years before being found out.