Compulsory Arbitration.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3676, 28 February 1899, Page 3

Compulsory Arbitration.

AN, INTERESTING! DISCUSSION i:, r ' LONDON. There seems no end to the discussion , in ” The .Times ” on the efficacy of, com--pulsory .arbitration in .-preventingr ind ustrial war,-says the London special correspondent . of the Sydney “ Daily ; Tele-'* graph.” The correspondence is broadening out,; and-has already; included controversies as to tho operation of v t . j New i Zealand Act; the colony’s co.nmercial prosperity,- and the ethics o. anonymous: newspaper discussion. “The -Times”' leading article, fro-n which I quoted last has evoked ; ; reply from tho Agent-General. iv.i Reeves did not take part in the goner A ■ discussion, but confined himself to co’- , rectingvthe leader’s inaccuracies. t_, :■ jfiddcd that the claim that the Act has- - rto far—Been a success is oased upon .positive work it has done in arrangm , some 40 disputes, preventing indust-rii war, - and peacefully settling the conch tions. of male and female labour upon i .just and humane basis. - ■ r; Mr Reeves’ letter was corroborated bj .Mr Charles Trevelyan, who stated tli-., during his recent visit to the colony, hi .had foimd a marvellous transformation of ppinion in favour of the -Act,. which is accepted by the general public : s ! working satisfactorily. The Opposition, .should they come into office, will not a* j.tompt to repeal it, and many employe s wouid hesitate if offered the alternal iv ;or returning to a i“stx-ike era.” “ II ” s ;iys_ Mi* Trevelyan, “some amendrafTn: ' dealing wit,h xvantonly vexatious appeah i could be introduced into the Act, U v .opposition would be confined to gruxa lers and theorists.” ■ Thou came upon the, scene “R.” Hi .accused Mr Reeves of fencing, and d’ a -. from the latter’s letter-the dedxxctic r . that any. little, knot of .men wishing -o ; Pick a quanrekmust first register thornjsqlves as a union.:Then “R.” puts to iV • Reeves the folioxving questions ;—“Wir t does ho mean by a corporation for tin .purpose of the Act? A union is a car porationrt'or all purposes, or for none ;Is . a Nexv Zealand union a corporal-- 1 ■body, which can sue and be sued, or it not? If it is, are there any means i seeing, that it. has corporate funds upon which penalties can be levied before i is -.allowed to declare war by arbitration In any case, the precedent is value’e is for this country; because an Engiuo trade union can neither Sue nor i ssued.” ■•■■■■ _ Mr Trevelyan’s last remark shoxvs t'rt it either employers or xvorkmen thin • tne Court’s award not good enough, “dv .award is a dead letter, the Court is in potent, and the law of the market . .supremo as it was in the beginning ar ’ over will be.” , But Mr Reeves was not to be dra - 1 ,by “R.,” and declined to be treated a-, a 1 “ hostile witness ” and give further in ..formation,.. unless “R.” came out ink; the open mid disclosed his identity. ; Whereupon a pretty little disensston ensued, not only in “The Times,”"br! in other journals, as to the rights ciionoymous . coxwespondents. “Tb’ Times,” in a. leader, made “R.’s” cair--; its own,- and dec'ared that “to objec to the discussion of public questions c .t-iiis manner is simply to set perse-v-' authority above sound reason.” “Ti--Times considers that -New Zealand’ experience is too brief; opinions as to i' operation'- differ, satisfactory.” : Mot ovex;, the colony’s policy is highly pr-, teccionist, and. the Government did n ■’ ventui'o to put itself under its own - Cr; pulsory Arbitration Act. - “ The Time- ’’ again displays its inaccuracy by talking, of the “Now Zealand Gazette” char--' mg its opinions. It means, of course, the “ Herald.” H.’s ” questions v/ero pertinent, an’ ‘ The Times ” asks them again on; A, pirn account. “The first thirfb to h done by the advocates of the Nexv Zrr land Act is to show how it can preve--' industrial war xvhen thd axvard of lb-" Court is intolerable, to one side or t?" other,und to make it clear xvbetb there are any moans of enforcing its it--evees upon trade unions, in the firy.

place, as corporations, and upon great bodies of workmen, in the second p:ace, in their individual capacity. Whan men and masters are willing to come to terms, arbitration as understood in England provides ail the needful machinery. When they are not willing, how are the terms settled by the Court, to be enforced against cither party? Masters may, indeed, be offered their choice of two modes of ruin. They may be fined £SOO over and over again, according to Mr Reeves, until they are bankrupt, unless they consent to expend the money in wages, which the business cannot pay. But how are twenty thousand -miners or engineers to bo coerced into/working upon terms which they reject? Is there any machinery under the proposed Act for, recouping, even to tin. men, the loss of employment caused by the depiction of capital ?” “ R.” also has a fling at Mr Reeves on his own account, having observed in Home similar cases that objections to anonymity begin when argument ends.