The New Zealand Times SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1923. THE ARBITRATION COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11435, 3 February 1923, Page 4

The New Zealand Times SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1923. THE ARBITRATION COURT

Mr Reardon’s protest against the attitude of the executive of the Alliance of Labour disserves the attention of the public of the Dominion and the support of every honest, clear-headed Labourite interested in the election of the workers’ representative on the Arbitration Court. Mr Reardon takes his stand on the firm ground that he is a member of a court with judicial functions, and offers himself for election as such. But the circular of the Alliance, as ive pointed out three weeks ago, does not recognise this claim at all. It plainly wants a representative who will act under the orders of the executive without any reference to judicial condi • tions. The Alliance, professing beliof in the Court of Arbitration, does not want a court; it appears to want a hear garden. Mr Reardon sees the anomaly, and resents the dictatorial attitude of the executive. “I am not,” he said at Dunedin, as reported yesterday, “prepared to "fawn and truckle to the Alliance or anyone else, even for a seat on the Arbitration Court.” It is a manly attitude, eminently worthy of universal respect. As representative of the workers, the Labour member ■ f the court is bound to protect the interests of the workers, and to see that their case loses nothing from lack of competent statement. The Labour member is able to exercise this duty because of his practical knowledge of all the things affecting, technically and otherwise, the conditions of the workers in any industry. Having performed that duty, the Labour member has to turn his undivided attention to the equitable conditions governing the decision of the court. Criticism of the Labour member on the ground of ETs failure to rightly and fully represent the interest of the workers is legitimate, and readily understandable. But criticism on the mere ground that Labour has failed to obtain its desires, is a thing very different. In its essence it is a complaint that the equitable conditions aro against the desires of Labour. It is a refusal to submit to the arbitrament of justice. It is practically a confession of faith worthy of the men who tried to paralyse the court by deadlock, and, being beaten, abused the Covernment which ended the deadlock, and the man who stood to his guns through all the welter, in terms unmeasured distorting the situation. This to the discredit of the upright court and the honest man. Mr Reardon’s comment is that it is matter of “regret that people professing to he supporters of the court should make public statements to the workers and the Press which are so misleading.” But it is not a matter for regret so much as for action. The independent manhood of the workers of New Zealand has no time for regrets. All its time should he devoted to resenting the attempt to dominate the court which abuse has failed to destroy. Asked by circular to send to tiio court a slave to be the instrument of irreconcilable disorder, Labour must send there a man ready to act up to the best standard of manhood. A slave would not hear anything but the voice of his -masters. He would not even hear any statement of the conditions of the problems before the court. Armed with the weapon of a, general strike, lately forged and sharpened by ballot, he would claim surrender by the court to every demand forwarded to him by his masters of the executive. The significance of that ballot is how plain. It has been concealed by every kind of euphemism by its engineers. But this circular has at last placed it before the world in its true light. -This ballot is the weapon for dominating the Arbitration Court by the hand of the slave to be made a member of the court by the manufacturers of the weapon. Now, the ballot is a check, in the matter of strikes, on Labour executives and officials, devised for ascertaining the wishes of the workers who are asked to strike. As such it must he taken in every case in which a suggestion of force—i.e., of striking—arises to the surface. But this latest ballot is a general authority to the executive of the Alliance to issue at any time an order to strike which must be obeyed. It outrages the spirit of the ballot, and the outrage was effected by nothing less than a piece of jugglery. The men who were defeated in their attempt to paralyse the Arbitration Court by deadlock have perpetrated a stroko of jugglery by which they may dominate the court, making it the acquiescent registrar of all their demands. It is a colossal attempt to add th© Arbitration Court to the list of weapons in the arsenal of organised Labour. Is the Labour of this Dominion going to acquiesce meekly in this policy of unreasoning coercion? If so, then the slave nominated will be given a place on the Court of Arbitration, and Labour will regard the court as its terrorised servant. If Labour is well advised enough not to acquiesce, it will send to the court a man who will act with the independence and competency of a just man whose guides ar® reason and equity. In the one

case industrial peace will be impossible. In the other, industrial peace will have a reasonable chance of permanence. The main thing to remember is that the Court of Arbitration is the foundation of industrial peace.