STRIKERS REFUSE TO PAY FINES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue 9303, 9 March 1907, Page 5

STRIKERS REFUSE TO PAY FINES.

TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE

CABINET.

MEN LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT.

WELLINGTON.. March" Cabinet is to meet to-morrow to consider ' the position regarding tl?e refusal of r the Canterbury slaughtermen to pay the fines', imposed on them by the Arbitration Court. Interviewed on the subject to-night by a Times .reporter; the Hon. Dr ' FincHay, Attorney General, said : "lii regard to the question whether the machinery of the Act is so "defective as'- to 'permit its violation with impunity, upon this test I claim to speak with more certainty and authority than with Regard to the first test, because this is -entirely a question of law. It narrows itself down to this, 'Can those who have struck, and have been fined, be imprisoned for non-payment of their fines ? This question can b© answered without th© slightest hesitation in the affirmative. The law is perfectly clear, and it stands thus— -section 15 of the Act of 1905 under which the men were fined, declares that those who strike shall be guilty of an offence and shall by liable to a fine by section 101. Where a fine is imposed it is enforced by means of a certificate/ given under the hand of the Clerk, and the seal of the Court, which when filed in any Court having civil jurisdiction shall thfere- j upon be enforceable in all respects as a j final judgment of such Court. Therefore a certificate in respact of the fines which have been imposed may be filed in the Supreme Court. What penalty may thereupon be -enforced against the defendants? A fine, it will be remembeired, is not a debt within the meaning of the Imprison- | merit for Debt Aboliton Act, for default • in payment of any penalty ox of any sum in the. nature of a penalty is iexpi-.essily excepted from .the Act. The protection, then, of the .Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act is rot given to Ihe defendants hiere. In England under the same circumstances they would, »on non-papment, be arrested under what 'lawyers call. 'the ca sa;' in New Zealand under the Supreme Court. Code of 18S2. The procedure is by way of a motion for attachment, on the filing and service of which the defendant has an opportunity of showing that he has paid the fine, and if he has not done so hie' may be sent to prison for a period not exceeding one year The limitation of one year is contained in the last paragraph of the third section of the Imprisonrrient for Debt | | Act,, therefore the powers of the law in punishing a man convicted of taking a part in a strike and failing to pay the fins imposed upon Mm are exceedingly wide, and I know of no rule which would prevent the Supreme Court from committing a man, j whose fine is not paid, to piison for such term leas than a year as the Court ma,y think fit. I am informed that the fines already imposed amount to over £700, and it is "quite clear that if each man who joins in the str^re may be fined £10, as is aillowed by the Act, and in default of payment may be sent to gaol for a substantial term. Can it then be said that' i nthis second test of the enforcdbility of its awards tJhe Act has broken down?^ Surely, if my view of the law is right.,' this question can only be answered one way. lam not the Minister for Labor, and in thlis connection my duty mainly lies in advising 1 the Governmient. The Minister ■ for Labor and the Acting Premier have both spoken, and their de'termimation to enforce* this law has already boon unequivocally declared