CURRENT TOPICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11538, 26 March 1898, Page 4

CURRENT TOPICS.

WHAT THE LOCK-OUT COST.

Taking all tie circumstances into consideration, the great Engineers’ Lockout was probably the most

extensive labour disputeof modern times. The great Dock Strike involved a larger number of men, but lasted only five weeks, while the Miners* Lock-out of 1893 lasted only fifteen weeks. Altogether, 70,000 breadwinners were thrown out of work directly, during the more recent contest between capital, and labour, and this takes no account of allied trades, which were also disorganised. The loss of wages has been, calculated to average 30s a man for thirty-one weeks, and this means a total of .£3,255,000. Now in strike pay, which of course- comes out of the pockets of the workers, the Allied Trades paid 40,000 men at the rate of 12s 6d per week; a total of .£775,000, This was made up cf levies, loans from other Unions, accumulated Union funds and public subscriptions, the last amounting to .£170,000. The skilled Unions, such aa Carpenters and Ironmoulders, spent not less than £IOO,OOO on out-of-work pay, du® directly to the look-out; and the unskilled Unions not less than £50,000. This gives £925,000 as the total amount of dispute* pay expended on the fight. The Union officers, of course, are in a position to say something of private savings, for if a m&a can keep himself, his case is not considered pressing.- It is thus reckoned that not less than half a million sterling of savings was absorbed. The total loss to the men may therefore be fixed at (£4,680,000. It is more difficult to form a reliable estimate of the loss sustained by the employers. It is generally estimated, that for the engineering trade wages amount to about one-third of the total value of the work turned out. Taking this as a rough, method of calculation, for there is no other available, it will he seen that the total value of work turned out was three times £3,255,000, or £9,766,000. Of this £6,510,000 must be borne by the employers. But 12£ per cent is to he deducted for work done by free labour, leaving the “ trade ” loss at the great sum of £5,696,250. This figure, of course, is but approximate, for there are no such means of getting accurate figures, as in the case of the men. It is safe, however, to say that the total loss was not much short of £10,600,000. '

It will be remembered that some time ago Mr Hawkins, S.M., prepared a report on Ihe working of prohibition in the Olutha district. The Presbytery - Office-bearers*

PROHIBITION IN THE CLHTHA.

I Association has just issued an, elaborate ■criticism of the Magistrate’s conclusions ■which seems to present a very strong case for the other side. Circulars were sent to every comer of the district, and replies were obtained from the following centres:—Tapanui, Knapdale, Waikaka, Pukerau and Waipahi, Clinton, Waiwera, Warepa and KaiMkn, Puerua aid Port Molynenx, Owaka and Balolntha. Apparently without exception these replies maintained the position that prohibition was in every way beneficial. The report deals withrsome of Mr Hawkins’s statements in detail. For instance, in alluding to the enforcement of the prohibitory law, Mr Hawkins asserts that no one can say that “the law has been allowed to sleep by the executive, or has not been fairly put in operation and tried.” To this it is replied that out of seventy-nine cases brought before him by the police only twenty-three convictions followed, a failure unprecedented in this or any other class of crime dealt wjth in the ‘courts of law. Moreover, Mr Hawkins admits that he frequently arrives at a conviction by dis-

crediting a part apd crediting other : parts of the evidence of witnesses for ‘the prosecution and totally discredit*idg the witnesses for the defence, and ‘the report instances several cases where the Magistrate discredited the-evi-dence of police officers, and believed the sk interested evidence of the defendants. With regard to the asserted consumption of drink in private houses, to the alleged disregard of truth in court, and to the assertion that dissension, ill-will and mistrust have grown up in every township, the Presbytery publishes replies from all quarters of the district, denying each and everyone of the charges in toto. On the second point the contention of the Presbytery is ths£ prohibition does not create perjurers; it only discovers them. The evidence used was supplied by seventynine office-bearers and twelve ministers, representing every district in the Clutha electorate, and the report concludes with some telling figures. In the four years (1890-1894) before prohibition there were 166 arrests for drunkenness in the electorate ; for the four years (1894-1898) since prohibition was enforced the number is only 6. The whole report will be found in the Otago Daily Times of Monday, and constitutes a very valuable contribution'to the controversy on the licensing question. . Just a year ago Lady

IiADT HENRY SOMERSET’S RENUNCIATION.

Henry Somerset surprised and displeased many of her fellow social workers by giving a qualified approval MnnnvMi/tH WWAYIOCQ/1

to the measures proposed by the British Government for the prevention of disease among the soldiers of the Indian Army. Her apparent conversion to the doctrine of inspection was quoted in these columns in defence of the principle embodied in our own legislation on the subject, and it is, therefore, only fair to give the same publicity to her ladyship’s renunciation of the doctrine. In a letter addressed last month to Lord George Hanjilton, she says that what led her to approve of the Government’s proposals was 'the expectation that the authorities would give every encouragement- to every form of elevating agency and that the regulations would be so drastic 'and penal in their nature as to make State odioua, and finally impossible, “What has been done,’’ she continues, “has been in an exactly opposite direction. It seems to have been the object of the Government to obtain the maximum of impunity with the minimum of protest from those who desire to see the State shape its actions according to Christian views of ethics. I need not tell your lordship I am not writing to say how strongly I am opposed to the course which the Government has taken, but I find that my letter to your lordship of last year has been taken by many to mean that I am on the 'side of the accepted view of State regulation, and X am from time to time quoted as a sympathiser with such views. I am, therefore, writing to withdraw any proposals made in that letter, for this Reason —that the events of the past year have convinced me of the unadvisability and extreme danger of the system that in April last I thought might be instituted. The absence of any serious effort of the Government to bring about a higher standard in the Army is a final proof to toe that as long as regulation of any kind can he resorted to as a remedy, it will always be regarded as the one and only panacea. My view was that it would be instituted as an odious but possibly effective auxiliary to moral efforts. I find it will always be accepted as a convenient substitute.” We need not enlarge upon the matter here—our present purpose is to put Lady Henry Somerset’s views fairly before our readers —but we may point out that the failure of the Indian system of regulation does not necessarily discredit the Medical Association’s proposals for effective inspection.

The sensational tragedy

thit EOOKWOOD • TRAGEDY.

at Kookwooa, in New South Wales, of which we have had some scanty details in

the cablegrams, seems to have been one of the most brutal perpetrated for some time. The victims were King, the sexton of the local cemetery, and his wife. King died from his wounds, and Mrs King was so severely injured that her dying depositions were taken. These were read at the inquest, and implicated Martin Cusack, a discharged workman. Cusack Was afterwards found shot, in a brickyard, having committed suicide. Mrs King’s statement is remarkable. “About seven o’clock this morning,” she said, "Martin Cusack came into my bedroom. My husband was outside at the time. Cusack asked me why did the bo.ss sack him ? I told him he had directions from

the trustees to do so. He then took out a revolver and said, ‘ I will kill you/ He fired at me and the bullet hit me in the face. He fired four shots at me altogether. Two hit me in the back. He fired three shots whilst I was trying to force open the window. After five or six minutes I thought he had gone and turned rotind, when he said' ‘Are you not dead?’ and fired again. The bullet hit me' in the back. He then left the room/ This was on Saturday, March 12. Late that night Cusack went to Father Kerwick, the Homan Catholic chaplain at Subiaco, and practically admitted his guilt. He asked 'for money, apparently with the object of getting away, but Father Kcrwicb refused it. The Father urged the murderer to give himself up to the authorities, and then went up the river to the nearest telephone and summoned the police. The coroner, in summing up at the inquest, said the viclims had been shot in a brutal manner unparalleled in the annals of crime. It was for the jury to say whether the evidence was sufficient to allow them to come to a conclusion as to the cause of death. To his own mind it was conclusive. The jury, of course, returned a verdict of wilful murder against Cusack. Most people would

be inclined to think that the murderer’s mind was unhinged, but the whole of the evidence implies that he was absolutely calm and deliberate in all his actions. In his long talk with Father Kerwick there does not appear to have been one incoherent or irrelevant remark. He does not seem to have been even passionately revengeful, and the whole affair is just one of those incidents that occasionally baffle students of criminology.