THE OSBORNE JUDGMENT

Evening Star, Issue 14535, 10 December 1910, Page 12

THE OSBORNE JUDGMENT

WHAT IT IMPLIES. Mr Frederic Harrison contributes a long letter to 'Tho Times' on the Osborne judgment. Anyone who understands the elements of Jaw and practical politics knows, ho save, that any complete reversal oi' thiii decision is out of the question. Working men cannot seriously ask that trade unions shall have doctoral rights which aro withheld for all other corporate and quasi-corpoTato bodies. After pointing out that he has all his life been an ardent advocate of Labor representatives, and for years has subscribed to Labor Representation funds, ho says tho trade unions have bragged in an airy way that the, Lords would not dare to ahum, alio decision. The decision, of course, had nothing to do with Poeis as r.uch. It is a serrvy trick to denounce the judgment as that of the Hereditary Chamber. All the f-ords who sat on the ease were professional men, who had ri«en horn the commonality by their own lifelong toil. Two oi the Law Lords were in Tact old Liberals anil good friends to trade rnionism. In the Court of Appwi! in 1908 the Master of the Bolls and the two Lords Justice:; wen- commoners. Two out of the three were former Liberal members, and they all laid down tho law at least an .strongly as did the Lords ill PJO9. The two' Appeal Courtis had no .■ilternativc course. In fat"..- eight, of our most experience! Judges have, simply stated the law as it. has l>ecn understood bv lawyers and politicians and business men.

There is no doubt a possible Bill which would ell'ect what Mr Keir Hardio aeka. Enact that in courts of law, and ; n interpreting the Trade Union Acts of 1871, 1876, and 1906, any combination of workmen which applies its common funds to return and maintain its salaried members in the House of Commons shall not be held to be a. trade union as defined by these Acts. Conservatives and Peers would \m rcJidy enough to pass that Bill. . • . The real struggle is not about money so much as about'organisation*. Tho Socialist minority seek to capture from tho majority t'h,> trade union power and prestige. In plain words, .groups of politicians bent upon " social liqu'dation " are seeking to use the invested funds, the good repute, and the. established machinery of old economic and iusurajice societies, in order to parade their utopia in Bills in Parliament. Nothing hinders Socialists, whether in broadcloth or corduroys, from raising political funds and supporting members who will back their Bills. But. it, is both craven and dishonest to clutch at tho savings carefully husbanded to succor tho laborer out of work, in sickness, ok! age, and death. The trade unionists whom 1 have known and honored from 1860 to 1890 would have scorned to resort to such mancenvres.

Tho reai question at issue (ho says in conclusion) is simply this: Do trade unionists in the mas.-; seek to diepoescus capitalists in the direction of industry and to replace them by a universal collectivism—i.e., by tho democrativo votes of the manual workers': This is tho avowed basis of the Labor party; and it must be held to bo so until Mr Keir Hardio and Mr Ramsay Macdonald publicly repudiate this doctrine as their own. To this •'universal collectivism" the mass of tho trade unionists would be committed if they put their unions and tho funds of their unions in tho hands of Mr Keir Hardio by "reversing the Oeborne judgment. ''