ARBTRATION AND ATTACHMENT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 67, 20 March 1907, Page 6

ARBTRATION AND ATTACHMENT.

In a leading article which appeared yesterday our morning contemporary took exception to our protest against the enforcement of the Arbitration Act by attachment, and referred to it as "a very surprising doctrine." Opinions must always differ on these questions, and in the present instance we are glad to acknowledge the candour and the courtesy with which what was novetheless a strong dissent was expressed. In an extract of considerable length our critic first allowed us to state our own argument, and the promise of fairness thus held out was maintained throughout his comments. Our contentions may be summarised as follows:— (1) The power of imprisonment was not in the contemplation of the Legislature when it declared that anybody participating in a strike or lock-out should bo liable to a fine recoverablo as a civil debt ; (2) The Legislature would never have conferred such a power with its eyes open, and would not now confirm it if the issue were raised; (3) It is therefore undesirable that the enforcement of the Act should bo mado to turn upon the exercise of this power; (4) Especially as the power would be useless or worse than useless just when it was most needed, viz., at a time of great popular excitement and upheaval. Now, we think that we are within the mark m saying that our contemporary's criticisms aro really confined to the nrst of these points, and with regard to that aro far from conclusive. The fine which was imposed upon the individual strikei^by the Act of 1905 was we are told, a new departure in industrial law, and carried with it, to every one understanding the law the corollary of a penalty of imprisonment if the fine were not paid." At first Bight there appears to be a serious variance between our critic and ourselves, but examination proves the difference to be more apparent than real. When we 6av that the Legislature did i not realise the effect of its enactment, and our contemporary replies that the j effect was obvious "to every one understanding _ the law," these seeming contradictories admit of a very oasv reconcilement in the possibility that' in this particular case legislators are not to be classed among those who understood the law. We are fully aware that such a suggestion would be received with blank incredulity in a court of law; but as the present argument is being conducted before a tribunal which values com-mon-sense above the most venerable of legal fictions, we sco no reason for discouragement on that score. Legislators' woeful and abysmal ignorance of the law is proved on almost every day of the session^ and a far bettor-informed tribunal would have no cause to be ashamed to plead ignorance of the particular provision in question. How many professional men could have told you off-hand a fortnight ago that an Act which imposed a fine without the alternative of imprisonment nevertheless conferred the power of imprisonment by implication under the reservations .in the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act of 1874? That Parliament was, in fact, ignorant of the existence of any such provision is sufficiently established* by the passage of the clause against strikes and lock-outs unchallenged and unsuspected. So much for our first point, and the ambiguity of our contemporary's rejoinder thereto. The other points may bo much more briefly dismissed, as they have not been directly challenged. Is' there really anybody who believes that Parliament would deliberately affirm the power of imprisonment which it has unwittingly granted in these cases if the matter camo up for treatment next session? And will anybody maintain that a provision too drastic, even after the experiences of the last five weeks, for deliberate enactment is one which a democratic community is justified In regarding as an operative part of its law? As some amonding Bill is inevitable during the coming sossion, the issue could be very simply tried by a clauso expressly affirming the result which has been reached in a circuitous and unexpected fashion. That an impecunious striker should be sent to gaol, while his more fortunate mate escapes with the payment of a fine, is a position which certainly has analogies in the criminal law, but surely should not bo admitted as a sort of accidental by-product of what professes to bo a civil procosg. Lot Parliament answor in pkin terms whether or not it is satisfied to have striking treated as a crime, and let tho statute-book bear witness accordingly.