THE RAILWAY STRIKE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12271, 15 May 1903, Page 5

THE RAILWAY STRIKE.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION.

A DRASTIC MEASURE.

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT.

EXPECTED LONG DEBATE.

FEELING REGARDING THE

BILL.

SOME OF ITS PROVISIONS TOO

SEVERE.

STRIKERS RESUMING WORK.

CONFLICTING REPORTS.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.—

Melbourne, May 14. In the Assembly last night, after further debate, the motion to introduce the Premier's Strike Bill was carried on the voices. A majority of the speakers supported the Government, some expressing a hope that the door would be left open to the men to return. Mr. Malouey declared that Sir. Shiels directed the operations of the Government, and that Mr. Bent did. the dirty work. .

■ Mr. Irvine introduced Lis Bill late at night. The preamble sets out that it is necessary to invest the Government with further powers to suppress a strike, so as to restore to the public the full use of the railways.'

The chief provisions of the Bill are that every person employed on the railway, either in a permanent or a supernumerary capacity, who ceases his duties without the approval of the Commissioner, after 14 days' clear notice, shall be deemed a striker, and be liable-to a penalty not exceeding £100, or 12 mouths' imprisonment, or both, such penalties to apply to any offence against any provision of the Act.

The Bill gives special powers to fill any place vacated by strikers, and makes offences the following:—The use of threats; violence ; intimidation ; insulting language to loyalists, or their families ; lurking near or spying upon the houses where loyalists reside, or their places of work; following them through the streets in a disorderly manner, soliciting or persuading them not to remain in the service, or carry out their duties; attempting to interfere with their liberty; tampering with railway property, or suggesting any act intended to stop or delay the ruuniug of trains; organising, holding, receiving, collecting, or distributing any strike funds to encourage others to continue or extend the strike. For such offences the offender may be arrested without a warrant.

Other clauses provide against the printing, publishing, or posting of any notification encouraging a strike, and make a meeting of more than six persons in favour of a strike unlawful, obstruction to the police an offence, and provide for the protection of any witnesses in cases arising out of a strike.

The final clause limits the duration of the Act to the continuance, of a strike.

Mr. Irvine, in moving the second reading, said that the Bill had a partially retrospective effect. Tho Government did not intend to ask Parliament to validate anything they had done. Ministers took the whole responsibility for their acts.

While Mr. Irvine was explaining the more stringent provisions, he was interrupted by angry demonstrations from the Labour members, and cries of "Russia!" "Shame!" "Hang them!" Shoot them!"

With regard to the men who remained loyal, and those who came to the assistance of the Government, Mr. Irvine said it was intended to give them seniority, but not to close the door to strikers who signified that they were willing to return, but the door would be open for a very limited time.

Sir A. J. Peacock moved an amendment, expressing regret that the men had gone on strike on the eve of the assembling of Parliament, but that if they would return forthwith the House would take into consideration any grievances from which they might think they were suffering. He urged the Government not to rush to an extreme in legislating for this strike. He advocated conciliation.

The Premier said that the effect of the amendment was to ask the Government to surrender its responsibility in the matter. It had the effect of a motion of want of confidence. The Government must assert its responsible position. Mr. Morrisey, a former member of Sir A. J. Peacock's Cabinet, declared that the people must support the Government. It was Government or anarchy. Sir A. J. Peacock's amendment was negatived by 58 to 30, and the debate was then adjourned till this afternoon.

The Legislative Council sat only for a short time last night, and adjourned till this afternoon, awaiting the Strike Rill from the Lower House.

(Received May 15, 12.31 a.m.)

Melbourne, May 14.

During the early part of the debate, Mr. Bromley, leader of the Labour party, said no one would deprecate a strike more than he. For years he had fought against strikes. Had he and his confreres been consulted probably there would have been no strike. The strikers had been jumped on time after time. Were they to have no right of speech, no liberty of thought? The Premier was not almighty. The views of the men ought to- have some consideration. On the resumption of the debate this afternoon Sir A. Peacock announced that he never intended his amendment as an expression of want of confidence. Had it been carried he was convinced the strike would have collapsed to-day. He would support the second reading of the Bill, but would oppose a number of clauses in committee, which were too drastic. Mr. Smith, a Labour member, charged the Government with unfair treatment of the railway men in regard to retrenchment and reclassification, and characterised the Bill as panic legislation. He asked the Government to adopt other means of dealinn with the matter. Mr. Wicktord congratulated the Labour members on not attempting to justify the strike.

Mr. Duffy said the Bill would place every man at the mercy of any policeman who thought he was discussing a strike. Anyone with a matchbox bearing the word " Strike "' was liable to arrest and imprisonment. He was willing to give the Government full power to stop a strikej but not such powers as were asked for. Mr. Fink thought it was time the demands of the Labour party should be stopped. He hoped at the next election members would be returned pledged to assist in the development of the country.

(Received May 15, 1.22 a.m.)

Melbourne, May 14.

The strike leaders say it will take a fortnight to get the Strike Bill through. The more drastic clauses will be strongly opposed. In the Assembly the debate is proceeding, and is likely to prove very lengthy. The feeling in both Houses and outside is that some of the clauses, especially those referring to street gatherings and publishing and distributing strike matter and strike moneySi are very; severe and need toning 4ftwn„ " ",'..'.'"-.