WAR ON THE COMMUNITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18247, 14 November 1922, Page 6

WAR ON THE COMMUNITY.

Emphasising the fact that the seamen's strike is a rejection of the Arbitration Court's award and a repudiation of the Court's jurisdiction, the Mayor of Auckland, in a statement published yesterday, invited trade union leaders to declare their attitude toward tactics that threatened to wreck the arbitration system. A reply hail been made by Mr. Bloodworth, and though his qualification to discuss the matter is not doubted, there will be general agreement that his view of the question has either been unfortunately expressed or is fundamentally unsound. He declares that he does not value or desire the present industrial system, and accepts tho Arbitration Court only as part of that system. Such words come strangely from a man whose ambitions to gain a seat on the Arbitration Court are well known. Mr. Bloodworth may mean that he regards the present industrial Bystem as a phase in tho evolution toward a better system, but while it lasts the Arbitration Court stands as the constitutional means of regulating industrial conditions. Labour organisations and Labour leaders who repudiate the Court now are not likely to have any more respect for whatever institutions may succeed it under a higher development of the industrial system. It is not surprising that from his misconception of the Arbitration Court Mr. Bloodworth should proceed to an utterly illogical interpretation of the seamen's strike. He denies that the seamen's action is a challenge to the community, because it was upon the shipowners' motion that the Court heard the dispute and made its award. The argument suggests that whichever party files a dispute for hearing thereby gains an advantage in the Court's award. By the same process of reasoning, had the Court granted new concessions to the seamen, and the shipowners had rejected tho award, Mr.' Bloodworth would' have condemned the seamen for standing by the Court and applauded their employers for repudiating it. The seamen's representatives apparently failed to establish before the Court claims for better conditions than the award allows. Whether representations to the shipowners would have gained any concessions is now immaterial, since by their action the seamen have abandoned whatever case they had on the merits of the award, and flung down a challenge to the

Arbitration Court and consequently to the whole community, which has established this tribunal as a means of administering justice in industrial disputes. It is a very decided and unmistakable challenge and it is satisfactory to note that the Government has now taken action to protect the public interest by suspending the provisions of the Shipping and Seamen Act, under which privileges are secured to seamen so long as they conform with constitutional law and discharge the responsibilities they owe to their employers and to the public. Only a grave emergency would justify such measures, but tho country is now faced with such - an emergency, and there can be no question that the Government's aotion is right and in the public interest. The seamen have refused to carry on services that are essential to the public welfare. They must consequently stand aside and allow others to take their places.