THE OPEN COLUMN.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4084, 23 June 1900, Page 2

THE OPEN COLUMN.

A DISCLAIMER. Mr, TV. T. Young writes;—ln your issue of this morning a paragrapli, taken from the Dunedin “Star,’’ relating to the Wharf Labourers’ Union, refers to myself -as the secretary of that organisation. Permit me to say that 1 am hot, secretary; . neither do I hold any •office th’the- union. But as a member of the union I was selected to represent the union at the Conciliation Board’s proceedings.

THE RIGHT HON. THE PREMIER. A correspondent, “H.H.T.,” writes; Unfortunately the Right Hon. the Premier has been laid up with an illness. If he still persists in doing the amount of work he takes’, upon himself, his illness may lead to serious results. Would it not be a graceful act on the part of the Ministry and Parliament to consider the question of his retirement from active politics, more particularly as his right hand man, the Hon. John McKenzie, is likely to retire from public life? May I, tnerefore, suggest that as soon, as possible after Parliament meets arrangements should be made for the retirement of the Agent-General, with a view to the Premier being appointed in his place. This would enable him to get the rest he has so well earned, and yet at? the same time be of service to the country, which he has, by his great ability, placed in the front rank of the dependencies of the Mother Country. The Premier, of course, would have to resign Ids seat, but I feel sure that the electors of Kumara would, to a man, desire the election of the Hon. Mr Reeves in his place. Mr Reeves would then he able to rejoin a Ministry that, has dope much, for the country. The” Hoh. Mr Ward would then become;' Premier, being, far and away the most'able and fitted for the' position, and by this means the Ministry would again hecoinc a strong ..one, and able to advance the interests, of the country as’ before.

OVER-POPULATION. . My friend Mr James Kenworthy has misunderstood me and also Mr Henry George, writes Mr M. Flursclieim. Neither of us advocates “Puppyism." The question whether “Prudential restraint,” as Neo-Malthusianism teaches it, is to be recommended or not has nothing at all to do with the theories I opposed in my article. I had to answer one who wanted to iriake us believe that we are suffering from the limited area of this globe and from our want*, of sufficient productive power to provide for the growth of our populations, At the sametime he found'a. dark' symptom in the growing difficulty of finding markets for pur produce;‘ jin, other words, he complained iiT the, same, breath that iye cannot,,.produce; enough to keep us alive,' and that we , produce so much that wo cannot get rid of: it all. It is against such nonsense that I took up the pen. I had to show the man that neither have we over-population, or the danger of one,' for centuries to come,' nor -is there any risk of under-produc-tion, as long as wo axe in vain trying to find a market for what we could produce without'the least trouble. That is all. The question of prudential restraint may be a pressing one or not under existing conditions; .1 have nothing to do with it, for I prefer to show how we can change these conditions, and thus can leave the question ' alone for the next five centuries- or ; pemaps for ever. I am sure universal wellbeing and education will settle it quietly as partial prosperity has already done in France and in the New England States ,of the. American Union. In beleaguered Mafeking the question how to restrict the. consumption of provisions was certainly; a very important one, but I feel sure that if Major-General Baden-Pdwell hp(d seen his way to beating hack the Boers and re-opening his communications with the outside world at "Once, he would not have wasted his time.with thoughts about the best way °.f..niaking the. provisions go as far as possible. ; A Veil, I, too, leave NeoMalthusianistn and its .“Prudential Restfaint”. alone as| long, as I see clearly before me the way of getting out of the prison into .which raise social conditions have forced .us.

ABE CONCILIATION BOARDS .TUB?-' , ; CIAL BODIES? .. On the reply to this question depends the justice, writes Arthur Edwards, of the recent newspaper attacks made upon, certain members of the local Conciliation Board. It is a fair contention that persons elected to any position are merely representatives of those who elect them. If such persons refuse to be guided, advised, and even instructed by those who elect them they cease to be representatives and become autocrats. Now the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides for the representation of both interests—those of the employers and the employed, with an‘independent chairman or judge as sole arbiter or umpire in the event of a tie. In other words, both the Board and the Court are composed of arbitrators and umpires.! If my.contention be right, why should the. representatives of either contending party be held up to public opprobrium for simply dping tbe j i\yery. obvious duty, viz.,, taking advice and themselves advising on matters which as arbitrator’s they are called’upon to adjust ? Would it not be considered absurd in ah ordinary arbitration case if the (representative of either side refused to take counsel with his principal? Would any sane business man submit to such a proposition ? ■ It is a matter of common knowledge that the employers’ representatives on the Board conferred with their principals; then why should it be a heinous offence for the workers’ representatives to do likewise? It is their,obvious duty to do so. The position would be entirely different if the members Of the Board were Justices of the Peacp or Stipendiary Magistrates appointed for the purpose by the Crown. In that case they would be sitting in a judicial, not a representative capacity. The various unions have, rightly endorsed by resolution the action of their representatives, Messrs Collins and Eisher, and an Intelligent public must do, the. same. No doubt the Act is felt to be oppressive by certain employers who sigh for the "good old days" of freedom of contract, when'an unscrupulous man could trade on the ne-' cessities of the worker, .but its beneficence has been made so manifest to all classes of the community with few exceptions that puny attacks upon the'Boards only serve to accentuate the usefulness of the measure:' —