WORK AND WAGES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXI, Issue 15267, 31 March 1910, Page 7

WORK AND WAGES.

THREATENED STRIKE OF RAILWAYJIEN. United Press Association —By Electrio Telegraph—Copyright. NEW YORK, March 29. The New York Central Railroad conductors and trainmen have demanded an increase of wages ranging from 8 to 84 per cent. Tho company has offered from Bto 25. A strike vote is being taken. THE SOUTH WALES MINERS. LONDON, March 29. The conference in South Wales indicates a probable ending of the coal crisis. ARBITRATION IN AUSTRALIA. A QUESTION OF LAW. (Received March 30, 10 p.m.) SYDNEY, March 30. An important point in the arbitration law was decided by the High Court. The question of law submitted for determination was whether under the constitution it was competent for tho Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to make any award which was inconsistent with certain awards or determinations of State Wages Boards. Tho contention was set up that in making an award in a dispute extending beyond tho limits of a State, tho president of tho Arbitration Court was not bound by any State law regulating industry, but might prescribe whatever he thought necessary in order to bring about an effectual settlement. The Chief Justice said that arbitration meant primarily determination by a tribunal which was not an ordinary court of justice bound to administer the strict rules of common statute law, but a tribunal selected by the parties to a controversy to which both submitted themselves and by whose determination they agreed to bo bound. The efficacy of an award was derived from the agreement of submission. Although statutory provisions for its enforcement were now commonly adopted, the foundation of the authority of the arbitrators was tho consensual agreement of the parties. In course of time tho meaning had been extended so an to include determination by arbiters, some of whom wero necessarily the freo choice of tho parties, but this difference in the mode of choice did not alter tho fundamental nature of the functions of the arbiters, which was to'mako a determination that the parties were bound to obey. It followed that whatever the parties could lawfully agi eo to do thoy might bo ordered to do, and whatever thoy could not lawfully as;reo to do they could not be ordered" to do by a tribunal. Thcso conclusions were incontrovertible, and, indeed, woro not controverted afl far as ro<>-arded an arbitration tribunal lawfully established within any civilised State. By a majority the Court answered the question in tho negative.