The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 1894.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10309, 30 March 1894, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 1894.

The Auckland coterie calling itself “The National Association of New Zealand, ” continues fulminating against the present Government, aud issuing reports, resolutions and manifestoes, setting forth very clearly the whole duty of the State with regard to every public question befora the country. Tha industry of the National Association is truly phenomenal. Its influence might be appreciable if it qould only occasion* > uliy manage to bo in accord with ! enlightened public opinion. Pos- | sibly, also, it would have some | claim to the title of “ National,” if it could divest itself of its provincial or insular way of view- | ing all political questions. One of | its latest pronouncements, gravely | given forth as drafted by tho Political j Committee and approved by the 1 Council of the Association, has been | communicated to the Government and j the Press of the colony. It deals with • the important question of land ssttlei meat, and does so in four paragraphs, | which are meant to be a crushing i condemnation of the Government ‘ policy ot expropriation of European owners of large estates with a view to tho subdivision and nettlament of the laud. Tho first paragraph sets forth tho fact that there are largo areas : of Crown and Native lands in the North Island which are at present unproductive, and asserts that these could, by a moderate expenditure, be opened up and made productive, eons | to “ render a return for the capital

invested in their purchase.” This seems to contemplate the compulsory acquisition of Native territory, and so far as that branch of the subject ia ( concerned the “ National” proposals \ are equivalent to the following (1) Expropriate Maori land-owners, and leave the Europeans alone. (2) Encourage settlement in the North Island and let the South stagnate or go backwards. It is pretty well known that even in the North Island there is no large area of. Crown lands suitable for settlement purposes. In the second paragraph the extraordinary statements are made that | the purchase of the Cheviot Estate “ has burdened the colony with debt to the amount of over .£300,000, and has demonstrated that the demand for land for settlement ia not in excess of the supply.” The statej ment about debt is a moat disingenuous one—intended, as it apparently is, to convey the impression that the permanent debt of the colony has been increased by the sum named. There is also an unfair attempt to employ this alleged unfavourable parch ase as an argument against the national resumption of large estates —the fact being that this purchase has no connection whatever with that policy, but was forced upon the Government in defence of the revenue. The advertising of the Cheviot freehold blocks in Australia is the National Association’s proof that there is not sufficient demand for land in the colony; but that fact really proves no more than that the Government was desirous of obtaining the full market value for the land, so that the finances might come out right and the estate be made a source of profit instead of a burden. The vulgar error of trying to prove too much has been committed by the National Association. If it is “demonstrated that the demand for land for settlement does not exceed the supply,” where ia the necessity for taking possession of the Native territories ? The third paragraph of the report ia a long, opinionative and not overlucid one. It does not contest the justice or the necessity of expropriating European owners, but it asserts that such a policy would be “unwise and wasteful,” because it would —to put it bluntly—divert public expenditure from the North Island, add to the public debt, and “ temporarily ” reduce the revenue from land tax. We need not comment upon the truly national ” nature of these objections. Emally, the report expresses in the fourth paragraph the opinion that “the whole resources available for settling the country ought to be applied to the work of surveying and reading the lands which are now owned by Government, or which may be secured from the Native race;” in other words, all surplus revenue should be devoted to the North Island. As a small concession to the South, the Association graciously adds: “ Where local demands for land for settlement exceed the supplies available, the Government should limit its interference to merely facilitating the subdivision of large estates, and should not purchase them on behalf of the colony." This is really very kind of the Association | but we should have liked a definition of what it means by “ facilitating ” subdivision. Would “ facilitating - ,” for example, cover such a proposal as the doubling of the progressive land tax? Or is it “merely” intended that the Government should act as sale agents for the land-owners, helping them, without commission charges, to get the beat possible price for their estates ? We hope the Association will explain. Seriously, no one in the south has ever questioned the vast importance of securing the settlement of the Native lands ia the North Island, and the present South Island Premier promises to do more in that direction than was ever attempted by any of his predecessors, who have generally been northern men. Surely, then, it is the height of arrogance for this so-called “ National ” Association to demand a complete cessation of landpurchasing in the south, in order that the whole resources of the State may be devoted to developing the northern portion of the colony. The “ local demands ” of Otago and Canterbury may appear* unreasonable to a few ignorant and prejudiced people at a distance; but they do not suffer by comparison with the “ national ” policy propounded by this little band of Auckland Conservatives.

A considerable amount of interest centres in the Conference of Trades and Labour Councils that is now proeaedS ing at Auckland. By means t of thio Conference, it is intended that the j collective opinion of colonial workers shall i find expression with regard to legislative proposals that specially affect their in- ! forests. Members cf both Houses will, of I course, pay due deference to the wishes of | such a representative gathering, and the ' general public cannot fail to be largely affected by the results of its deliberations. The questions under discussion are no less varied than important. They range from the remuneration of girl labour up to the grave international problem of alien immigration. Questions of rates of wages and conditions of labour are those that most closely affect people as a whole, but of hardly less moment is the problem ' of how to foster native industries by adjustment of Customs tariffs. On all these questions the deliverances of the Conference will receive the weight they deserve, as honest efforts to resolve difficulties and advance the prosperity of the colony. It is hoped that one result of the Conference will bo to revive the cause of unionism, and probably the special need of ouch a revival in the far north had something to do with £he fixing of Auckland aa the ; place of meeting.

THE TRADES AND LABOUR CONFERENCE.

j On the subject of Auckland’s backwardness in matters industrial we quote from a recent issue of the Weekly Standard, a new 1 Labour-Liberal paper: “Unionism in Auckland has fallen into utter decay. The workers have become spiritless, and its chief representative body, the Trades and Labour Council, has lost its prestige and no longer enjoys the influential position it possessed for several years. There was a time when scarcely a trade was without its active, wellorganised union with full representation at the Council. The value of unity and combination has been demonstrated in the •i progressive legislation favourable to labour

THE INDUSTRIAL “ SHOCKING EXAMPLE.”

now on the Statute Books of New Zealand,' The want of unity and organisation has been seen in the result of the late general election. The workers are going backwards and giving up the field bo hardly won, just at the time, too, when they should keep their ground and preserva cohesion amongst themselves. . . . . At the present time there is the established principle of eight hoars gradually and surely relapsing into nine hours and more for a day’s work, there are diminishing rates of wages and abuse of overtime and of piece-work, employment of females at starvation wages verging on sweating, and the evils of unrestricted apprenticeship/* Mr J. Regan, President of the Conference, was interviewed by a Herald reporter a few days ago, and fully confirmed some of these remarks. He said“ Young girls, just after leaving school, are put to different classes of employment, and are expected to work twelve months without any wages. Then at the end of their term they are turned off to make room fo others who start in the same way. VV intend to suggest to the Minister of Labour that the Factories Act should be ho amended ns to cover such things." Men crowded out of employment by boys, and idle artisans walking the streets while the poods they might be making are imported at cheap rates, were evils also commented upon by Mr Regan, who said the Conference would do its best to remedy them. We wish we could feel assured that the retrogade movement, so frankly recognised in the north, is not also extending over the whole colony. There is in other districts at least an equally urgent necessity for stricter regulation of juvenile labour than now prevails.

MARITIME MATTERS.

The Shipping and Sea*' men's Bill, which, was dropped last session, will, it is understood, be reintro-

duced this year, along with other labour measures. On this matter Mr Began indicated that the Conference would probably insist upon the views of the workers being heard. Ho remarked with truth—- “ The evidence called by the committee of the House of Beprosentatives was simply that o! shipowners and people connected with shipping in the interest of employers. It is a remarkable fact that seamen, or those similarly interested, should not have been called. The Bill was so mutilated in committee as to make it unrecognisable." In addition to the above there is the more immediate question of the threatened redaction of the wages of maritime workers, consequent upon the lower rates that prevail in Australia. This matter was specially remitted to the Conference, and it is one that demands specially careful treatment if a serious dispute is to he averted.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

Questioned on the subject of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, Mr Began expressed every confidence

that the measure would pass in the coming parliamentary session. He declared strongly in favour of the compulsory clauses, as being necessary to prevent the law being a dead letter. Either party might, in the absence of compulsion, refuse to treat, and he instanced the Broken Hill strike, wherein the men concerned repeatedly asked for arbitration and were refused. The Herald maa suggested that “ public opinion" would probably prove as strong a compelling power as Act of Parliament, but Mr Began was able to prove from a local instance the failure of public coercion.

THE employees’ ATTITUDE.

Mr Began . mar roll ed at there being any oppoaifcion to a measure that was as much in the interests of

employers as workmen. We oin in the wonder, but experience every, where shows that employers are averse to an amicable adjustment of labour disputes. France recently completed one year’s trial of a legally-constituted Board of Conciliation in labour disputes which was established in 1892. The results are thus reported:—During 1893 the newlyconstituted tribunal was appealed to in 101 cases. In 'fifty-three cases the initiative was taken by the workmen, in six cases by the employers, in two cases by employers and employed jointly, and in tbe remaining cases by the County Court judges, orjuges ds pain, who are bound under certain circumstances to interfere under s the provisions of the law. As a general rule, the masters have shown marked hostility to the new tribunals. They have refused in forty-one cases to tomply with a summo as to appear and stow cause. In fifteen cases where they so refused, the initiative of attempting a settlement of a grave dispute that threatened to end in disorder had been taken by tie juges de pau. This hostile attitude of employers argues one of two things. It is either a sign of nonintelligence, or a confession that they possess a non-equitable advantage which they are determined not to relinquish. Neither conclusion is a very flattering one, and we trust that New Zealand employers will neither be found opposing the Bill nor resisting its provisions should they become law. That they have nothing to fear from a judicial adjustment of labour disputes is proved by the French experience. Out of fortyone cases in which French employers last year ignored the Conciliation Court, the men went on strike in twenty-six cases so as to compel the intervention of the law. The result was that in four cases only were the claims of the men upheld, the employers being successful in fifteen cases, while seven resulted in a compromise. Thanks to Conservative opposition New Zealand has not led the way in this labour reform, which is destined to have a most beneficial effect in preventing strikes and curbing competition; but there is no reason why, viewing the successful application of the principle elsewhere, we should any longer hesitate about adopting it here.