Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 13162, 19 January 1909, Page 3

upon and as far as possible pub into operation. sometimes these committees hold a meeting or two at long interval, and then quietly forget all about the mater._ -"tore often than not they become ■ e , nc . through various members resigning f or losing their seats on the Council. The , result is that for some time past grievances : have been accumulating in the various departments, and as nothing is being done to remedy them the employees are begin- ; mn S to become a little restive.—‘ Herald.’ ******* | PAYMENT OF LABOR MEMBERS. The decision of thj English Court, of Appeal affirming the illegality of using union tuncls tor the payment of the salaries of L, members in the House of Commons was a veritable bombshell in the camp of Labor. That is practically admitted by all their leaders. Mr Richard Bell, M.P., says that the decision is to be regretted, as it would undoubtedly check the progress of the Labor movement very much. But it must not be forgotten that the responsibility for driving thousands of membci> of trades unions to this position was entirely upon the shoulders of the extreme ‘Socialist clement in their actions towards c\ ei \ body else who had not been prepared 1 1 C'cii line and aacpl their dictation and their strenuous efforts to drive out of the Labor movement men who were not pieparcd to submit to their methods. Mr Bell said he had no doubt the case would lie taken to the House of lairds. If it be- ' erne necessary to have new legislation, he pointed nit that v ‘irr-a;: in the (as<s if the Trades Disputes Act all trades unionists were agreed that their funds should he protected in eases ot Bade disputes, the same men would not lie agreed that any section should he able to compel them to subscribe to political bodies and representatives with whose "P'' llons they disagreed. Mr R. Hudson, M. regarded tlie decision as another page in the history of might over right. It only served to emphasise the great need tor the federation of the whole of the industrial and democratic classes of Great Britain-—the need for their existence as Irocrated party of trade unionists, cooperators and Socialistic societies into a solid Labor party. Mr 'Thomas Burt, •'l 1., considered the decision a most important one, with very far-reaching conseqiences. Mr Peter Curran. M.P., who is chairman of the Federated Trades, told a Labor meeting at York that there was more behind the judgment than could be seen on the surface, and they intended to expose it before long, and to find out who was behind the plaintiff, making him the catspaw lor the purpose of closing the parlamentary door against independent parliamentary Labor representation. They nert not going to let the grass grow under their teet. and if M,- Justice Farwell refused to grant the privilege to go to the Hou<e nt Lords, then they would proceed—meagre though they were in numbers in the House, small and insignificant as thev might seem to he to fight on the floor of the House and in the conntrv—to get the clause embodied in the Trades Union Act sanctioning the utilisation of trades union tuncls ior maintaining direct independent Labor members. The fact was that emp.o\ors were really becoming alarmed at -lie Labor members in the House getting a grip ot the legislative machinery, because they knew that if they did they" would be reinforced in their movement, and there "mild be the possibility of bringing about a more equitable industrial system of constitutional methods. And Mr Keir Hardie declared that if the House of Lords upheld the judgment of the Appeal Court, those imons against which there was no injuncion would probably go on contributing to the Labor party as before, while those against which an injunction had been obtained would have to make a voluntary -v tor representation purposes. They would do for this what they did for trades t.isputes and 'I art - 1 ale, and insist upon the law being so amended ns to give free-born British subjects the right to nay for Labor representation in Parliament. Since 1874 trade nninrw -v- _. i i ’

t , 1 Mi muiimerland and Durham, had been paving to have members in Parliament without challcnm? but the moment Labor-Liberalism clisanpeared and Labor-Socialism came into uew the courts of law w -re put into operatron with the result indicated. It meant hat the privileged classes would fight at every corner. - b ******* WAGES IX ENGLAND AND AMERICA. A report issued by the American Department ot Commerce and Labor (Bulletin -No. (7 ot the Bureau of Labor, Julv, ISCSi on wages and hours of labor and retail prices ot food in the United States gives much valnabh infor nation on these points while tne recently-published Board of Trade report as to the cost of living among British working men (CM. 2,864’. supplies similar facts for Great Britain. Together these two official publications give authenticated data tor comparing the relative comtort ot American .vorking men. who are protected from foreign competition bv a tariff and British working men under Freetrade. Ihe New \ork correspondent ot the Standard has taken pains to make such a comparison in detail, and the results show beyond doubt that the working classes of the United States benefit enormously by the protection which their iaritf affords. The first point that strikes one is tiiu much larger wage paid to the protected workman, varying from 80 to £tlU per rent, more than the wage received by the British workman. Thus, a bricklayers average weekly wage in the States us £6 Is sd, and in England £2 Os in ’ ?', raa; ’ on earns £5 os Id, as against £1 las 4d there; a carpenter gets £4 5s Bri '/Tu H m England be ran ml/ make £1 T9s 4d; a plumber receives £0 6s 3d, com-F-'iied with £1 19s 4d; a plasterer is paid £5 6s Bd, while his British confrere gets oniv £1 19s 9d. and 0 on through over a dozen of the, leading trades. I lie rates chosen for comparison are the highest of the predominant range tor the I nited Kingdom, e-aduding London and the average wage for the United States in 1907, so that if either country is i-nauly tavored it is England. The Cost of Living.— These figures show that the American workman receives for his labor nearly two and a-half times as much as the British workman, bat the contention of Freetraders is that the cost of living in the fates is so high as to swallow up the higher wages. Let us see if this be so Jhe cost of food to the protected workman, according to the authorities mentioned, is calculated to’ be £67 8s 7d per annum per family of live, compared with £OB for the Freetrade workman. The dif- " ference in the cost is, therefore, less than £lO, while the average difference in wages M ,- 4 • 0-‘y"ig for rent and fuel, the L nited States workman has a balance in hand of £1 8s 10d, while the British workman has only 7s Bd, as i, shown i„ tne lollowing ; r Workman.—Weekly wage, £5 os 7d ; food, £1 5a lid ; rent, 8s 4d ; fuel, - 2s 8d ; balance, £1 8s 10,1. , Freetrade Workman-Weekly wage. £1 los lOd ; food, £1 2s 3d ; rent, ss; fuel Is 9d ; balance, 7s Bd. ’ I he Board of Trade do not give an average lent lor the Freetrade- workman, but no one will consider 5s per week to be an over-estuaate.