GO-SLOW STRIKE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9648, 1 May 1917, Page 6

GO-SLOW STRIKE

CONSPIRACY CHARGES NINE OF THE ORGANISERS SENT TO GAOL “NO BARGAINING WITH JUSTICE.” * / MAGISTRATE UNABLE TO RECOGNISE THE COMPACT. Press Association. AUCKLAND, April 30. The trial concluded to-day of tho miners who wore charged with organising tho “go-slow” coal strike. Sentence was imposed by Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., of nine months’ imprisonment on each of the following seven men; — John Jones, president of the Goalminers’ Federation and president of the Huntly Union. Joseph O’Brien, secretary of the Huntly Union and member of the federation executive. Arthur Jordah, vice-president of tho Huntly Union. James Cummings, secretary of the Waipa Union. 'John Arbuckle, secretary of tho Federation of Labour. J. Winniard and T. Helson, president and secretary respectively of tho Donniston Union. Sentence of two months’ imprisonment was imposed on : Robert Wintle, member of the executive of the Pukemiro Union. John Wesley, miner, Huntly. When tho court resumed to-day, Mr B. A. Singer announced that all the defendants pleaded guilty. THE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE MINERS. Addressing the court on behalf of the Crown, Mr V. B. Meredith announced the terms of the arrangement made between Sir James Allen and tho Hon. W. D. S. MacDonald for tho Government and representatives of tho miners on strike, as already published. Mr Meredith added that further requests made at the conference of April 20th, for the release of Semple and other seditious loaders, and that the present proceedings should be ' abandoned, and that other proceedings in connection with the strike should be abandoned, were refused. The Ministers were induced to enter into this arrangement by representations bearing every appearance of sincerity, that the leaders who had been arrested were really not to blame, bin; had been forced into the present position by others, who had not been arrested. It was urged that it was unjust that the leaders should suffer for tho fault of others, and in accepting this statement as true the Ministers were induced not to press for a penalty. s “These representations may have been correct as far as the strike, on the grounds of anti-conscription, were concerned,” said Mr Meredith, “but it is perfectly clear from the correspondence that in so far as the ‘goslow’ strike was concerned—and that is the question at present before tiro court —those representations were untrue. In pursuance of that agreement I am instructed by the Government not to press for a penalty of these offences to which these men have pleaded guilty. To best effect this purpose, if Your Worship sees his way to grant the application, I , would ask that the hearing be abandoned under sections 86 and 87 of tho Justices of the Peace' Aot for a fortnight, when further application can be made for a further adjournment if matters are generally satisfactory, or an application may be made for the final disposal of the cases; tho men to bo released in the meantime. lam instructed to make it clear that the Government recognises that, in making such arrangement as I have indicated has been made with the miners, it had no power in any way to bind or oven to influence the court in tho exercise of .its judicial discretion and the question of whether the court can grant it is a matter entirely for lour Worship.” NO MOTIVES OF DISLOYALTY. In his address to tho court, Mr Singer said that defendants were not actuated by any motives of disloyalty. Ho stressed the point that the regulations were made seventeen days after tho “go-slow” strike began. Its purpose was solely to bring pressure on the mine-owners.

Mr Frazer remarked that a perusal of the correspondence led him to that conclusion.

Continuing, Mr Singer submitted that the men had not at any time hampered or embarrassed the Government in the prosecution of the war. He said that the fight of the past few months, culminating in the “go-slow” strike, was caused by tho deliberate intention of the mine-owners to stultify the Miners’ Federation. He concluded by saying that the men were prepared to return to work and use their influence to make tho output greater now that they had gained a compulsory conference for which they had asked.

In reply, Mr Meredith said that tho reason the mine-owners refused tho men's demands at the conference in February was because they would involve a considerable increase in the price of coal to the public. They offered to have the case heard by the Arbitration Court, but this was refused by the men point-blank. ■ THE ONLY ISSUE. Mr Frazer said that the only issue was whether there had been a seditious strike, and whether the present defendants had taken part in it. It was admitted that the “go-slow” policy was in operation in the mines. So far as the present defendants were concerned, it seemed clear that the “go-slow” policy was brought about bj; industrial reasons, and that? the present defendants recognised the futility of trying to have the Military Service Act repealed. It was stated by M;r Singer that no disloyalty was intended by the men. . He did not think, from the point ox view of the

law, that the object mattered at all. Whether there was any intention to do harm to the State was beside tho question. The regulations were passed for the protection of the community in a time of extreme peril, and he did not think tho court should consider motives with anything like tho degree of seriousness that would be applied to ordinary eases. Mr Singer had made a sound point when he said that the legislation was ex post facto. The “go-slow” policy was actually in operation before the regulations ot February 16th were made, but the “go-slow” policy still continued. Warnings were circulated, and the defendants, who wore intelligent men, must have been aware of the position. They knew it was a serious national matter. They persisted in going slow. It could not he said they had acted blindly or in ignorance. The position was, then, that they advocated tho continuance of a “go-slow” policy, regardless of the fact that it had been decided by the Government that the coal industry was essential for tho proper carrying-on of the war. Mr Singer said this did not indicate disloyalty. It did not, perhaps, indicate actual, positive, intentional disloyalty, hut none tho less there was negative disloyalty, which had just as serious consequences for the nation. The interests of the community were put on one side, so that the interests of the miners themselves should not he affected. Von Hindenhurg had said that every man who went on strike was a traitor to the men in the trenches. He believed .this applied in New Zealand as well as in Germany. Tho nation was in a desperate situation, at a crucial stage in the struggle, and every little thing helped or hindered. Ho did not want to say anything hard, hut any man who hindered the progress to a successful conclusion of the wpr was playing tho German game.

UNABLE TO RECOGNISE AGREEMENT.

Referring to tho application made by the Crown Mr Frazer said he supposed an adjournment had been applied for to see how matters went. Me Government through two of its Ministers had made a compact with representatives of the miners that these cases would not he pressed. This was an agreement which, as a judicial officer of tho Clown, ho was unable to recognise- He was bound by his judicial oath to administer the laws of the country without fear or favour.* He could not consistently become a party to any such agreement. He did not want for a moment to say anything which might ho construed as reflecting upon the Ministers who made the arrangements. He recognised that having made the arrangements they were, as honourable men. bound to redeem the promise .made, but the promise could not be redeemed by making the court a party to any bargaining with Justice. Ho had only one course which he could properly pursue. He must pass such a sentence as he thought proper and leave it to the Government to apply to tho Governor to ex. orciso bis prerogative of pardon, by rescinding any sentence which might be imposed, by the advice of bis responsible Ministers if tihey thought proper so to do. Dealing with the defendants; Mr Frazer said that Wesley and Wintle were different from the others in that their share had been smaller. In consideration of the fact that they had spent three weeks in gaol, he would impose a sentence upon each of two months’ imprisonment without hard labour. In regard to the others he felt justified in making some allowance for tho fact that the legislation was ex post facto and instead of the ordinary eleven monthe he would pass a sentence on each of nine months’ imprisonment on the first charge of conspiracy. Mr Frazer remarked that the Government was. of course, at liberty to redeem its promise to the men and apply to the Governor to lift the sentences. On the other charges defendants were convicted and ordered to come no for sentence when called upon.