Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1906.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 48, 26 February 1906, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1906.

THE TAFF VALK DECISION. ♦ ■ ~~- — Tho value to Ike 'Premier of a Royal Commission whon ho finds himself in n tight place and desires timo to devise moans for gotting out again has often been exemplified, but he would find tho dovioe of far greater value if ho wore In the Old Country. Something under twolve months wne nil the respite ho secured by the masterly and costly evasioh of tho Land Commission, but in Englnlid ho might easily have made it three years, The Royal Commission whose report on trade dispute* was sum* marisod in our London cables last Thursday has actually _ devoted two years and eight months to its deliberations, It was appointed in Juno, 1903; itcondudod the hearing of evidence early last year ; yet it is not till the present month that its report has been presented, In April, 1904, Mr. Bnlfour was able to ttso the familiar "mib judico" argument as a reason for evading the discussion of tho Trades Unions and Trades Disputes Bill of that year, and tho embargo has not bcon removed from the fortunato wriggler till h« finds himself both out of office and out of Pnrliamont, The publication of tho report after this long delay has row beon very opportunely timed for tho opening week of a new Pnrliamont, to which a new Ministry has already promised legislation denling with the subject. By far tho most important of tho questions submitted to tho Commission related to what is known ns tho Taff Vale decision. The legal position of trade unions in tho Old Country hns long been a subjoct of doubt and confusion. Not being corporate bodies, liko our own industrial unions for instanco, they cannot enter into legally binding contracts! but in tho caso of the 'I aft' Vale Railway Company v. tho Amalgamated Railway Servant* 1 Socioty it was decided by tho House of Lords in 1901 that this incapacity docs not carry with it an immunity from the normal legal consequencos of wrongdoing, The dofendnnt trad© union was hold liable in its collective capacity for the injury done by its authorised agents within tho ecopo of their authority to the railway cojn« pany, and oxecution was adjudgod to issue against its general funds, Tho decision was a crushing blow for the Amalgamated Railway Servants' Society, tho General Secretary estimating the total cost of the dispute lo the society at £60,000, of which £23.000 went in damages and costs to the otnev sidoi and tho demand for legislation which will remove this liability for the future has been a cardinal point in the Labour Party's programmo ever nince. Tho live Royal Commissioners are, however, unanimous in finding that "the Taff Vale decision Involved no new principle, and was not inconsistent with the legislation of 1871 [tho Trade Union .Act],' 5 The idea that tho law intended lo exempt trado unions from, actions of tort is, in their opinion, a mero misconception, resting on no othct foundation than that of long practical immunity. "A majority report holds that on the around of justice and equity the objection against disturbing the law is insurmountable. Wlicn trado unions wrong outsiders, there is no more reason that they should bo beyond the reach of the law than any other individual." It would indoed bo a preposterous proceeding for the law of a free country deliberately to set any man or body of men above the laW) to do so would be doing in the name of tho law what Tammany in Now York and both the bureaucracy and the revolutionaries of St. Petersburg seek to do in violation of It. The Trades Unions and Trades Disputes Bill, which has been before the House of Commons soveral times, with Mr. John Burns as one of its sponsors, does not formulate tho demand in any thoroughgoing or precise fashion, It proposes that "an action shall not bo brought against a trade union ... for tho recovery of damago sustained by any person or persons by reason of the action of a member or members of such trade union," How far would this clause carry? According to Mr, Ralfour's Altoriicy-Oeiio* ral (Sir R.. B. tflnlay), "if the clause be« carno law, it would oxempt trado unions from liability for the acts of porsons to whom they had given authorisation." On tho other hand the great lesnl authority of tho then Opposition, Mr, Asquith, statod thnt "tho principle of the third clause, which dealt with the protection of trade union funds and was renderorl noocssary by tho decision in tho Taff Vale orso, had his full approval j but lto thought tho clause might be advantageously amended in Committee. Tho funds of trade unions ought not to be mado liable for damago resulting from tho acts of irresponsible* agents." Such a liability would be as gross an injustice as the absolute licence which tlm ambiguous language of tho clause might be taken to confor upon trado unions, even where the flgenoy was clearly established. Tho Royal Commission appears to have struck just tho samo via media that was advocated by Mr. Asquith, for "the report recommonds lotfißlation whereby the- central authorities of a union may protect themselves against tlio unauthorised and immediately disavowed action of branch BRcnts." To divert the union of an Irrevocable ex officlo responsibility for tho rash action of every subordltialft official, while nt thd Sfttrto llino allowing the responsibility to rrtnaih absolute if the action is not disavowed, seems to bo a perfectly oq tillable and businesslike compromise. Other Interesting points, nnd especially that of the separation of the funds, imißt bo reset ved for future treatment.