THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 29,1921. CONFUSING THE ISSUE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18156, 29 January 1921, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 29,1921. CONFUSING THE ISSUE.

% The attempt of Mr Arbnckle, secretary of the Miners’ Federation, to confuse the issue which has been raised in the dispute at the Blackball mine is much less ingenious than it is maladroit. The now complexion which he seeks to give to the trouble is one that will deceive only the people who are either unintelligent or else are so unfortunate as to have very short memories. It may be thought by Mr Arbucklo to be a good tactical move on his part to declare now in wild terms that the one man, in- whose dismissal the dispute originated, is being “victimised” not because of the use of abusive language to the mine deputy but “ because he placed his union and principles before the interest of the master class who are causing more suffering to the workers, day in and day out, than ever could be caused by a revolt against the victimisation of one of their own class.” It is transparently his object to represent the. case as one in which the principles of unionism are being ruthlessly trampled under foot by—in the words of the Maoriland Worker —“ unscrupulous employerdom.” He would like, thereby, to embroil the whole of the workers of the dominion in what, after all, is a petty quarrel which should have admitted of a simple adjustment on the spot. We make no effort, any more than was made by the Under-secretary for Mines by whom a report on the subject was submitted to the Government, to apportion the blame for the fact that a trivial occurrence .was not settled by the utilisation of the machinery provided by law f ~r the purpose. But we do protest strongly against the attempt which is being made to elevate the dispute into one of s national character. Mr Arbuekle audaciously trios to throw upon the Coal Owners’ Association the responsibility for widening the basis of the dispute. What, however, is the

factP It is that the Miners’ Federation, having been unable to secure the reinstatement of the man, resolved to take

“ united action ” and to continue that action until it achieved Its purpose. It is in pursuance of that resolution, and of that resolution only, that a “ goslow” policy was introduced into a number of mines in which it: was not already bring practised. To suggest that the principles of unionism are in issue in a case like this is to throw dust in the eyes of the community. The only question in issue is one of discipline in a single mine and Is one affecting a solitary individual. Moreover, the facts being what they are, appeal for sympathy for that individual on the ground .of “ victimisation ” has a very hollow ring about it. There is, indeed, a great deal of hypocrisy in the cry of “ victimisation.” What, it may be asked, about the “ victimisation” of the public? Are the consumers of coal, who compose the whole of tne community, not entitled to any consideration whatever? Does the Blackball case, which is, as we have said, a trivial case that should have been disposed of locally, really justify a course of action that must, if it is persisted in, have the effect of penalising—in other words, of * “ victimising ”r—every household in the community? Mr Arbuckle himself betrays a sense of the weakness of the Miners’ Federation’s case when he declares that the miners, if they are not supported by the workers in other industries, will ■fight this dispute “on their own,” Apparently he recognises that he cannot count upon the general support of the industrial classes. And therein, no doubt, his judgment is not at fault. But in this event it should surely be evident to the Miners’ Federation that it is bent upon the pursuance of a policy which can only end in its defeat. Certainly it cannot be regarded as good strategy to court disaster. For this reason, although the Miners’ Federation has, through its official mouthpiece, assumed an attitude which is highly provocative, we hope it may yet realise that not less is to be gained by conciliation than by a persistence in the “ united action ” which it still threatens and which aims at the “victimisation” of the public as a whole.