A STRONG PROTEST. MR M'CULLOUGH'S VIEW.

Otago Witness, Issue 2811, 26 August 1908, Page 23

A STRONG PROTEST. MR M'CULLOUGH'S VIEW.

CHRISTCHURCH, August 21. Mr J. A. M'Cullough, the workers' representative on the Arbitration Court, when interviewed by a reporter, stated that he most strongly dissented from the findingr of the court, and had handed in the following statement to the president in Dunedin. The president, however, "refused to embody th:s protest in the court's finding, merely recording- the fact that Mr M'Culkrugh had strongly dissented. Mr M'Cullough's protest reads as follows: — Dunedin August 20, 1908. Re Canterbury Farm Worker*' Dispute. Though it may be usual and customary for a member of the court, when desiring - to give a minority report on any matter upon which he feels he cannot conscientiously support the finding of the majority to simply record his disagreement, yet I feel that in respect to the judgment given in connection with the Canterbury agricultural labourers' dispute, it is not only essential that I should emphatically and definitely protest against the finding in question, but as the representative of the workers on this industrial tribunal I should be wanting in my duty towards those who have placed roe in this pesition were I to allow this important decision to be dealt with in the manner it has been without making public the reasons that have induced me to protest. By a majority the court has adduced a number of reasons why an award in connection with the farming industry should not be made. While I have no desire to suggest that the court, in coming to this decision has been pr.om.pted by any ulterior or unworthy motives, yet I feel confident that not one of the reasons adduced, nor all o£ them combined, are sufficient to justify the court in its refusal . to make an award ; nor has this particular case had, in my opinion, meted out to it that justice which it has merited. To be plain, I am forced to say that the court -has, by its pronouncement, succeeded in disposing temporarily of an important and. responsible duty by sheltering behind a number of exaggerated and imaginary arguments that nave in one form or another been made use of by the farmers for the purpose of obtaining their object. Efforts and arguments of this character have been in vogue ever since the first industrial union of workers attempted to obtain better working conditions. Repetition has added nothing to their value. I regret very much that I 6hould be compelled to express my views in -this manner, and stild more that there ehould bo the necessity for my doing so; but so far as I am personally concerned, I have no hesitation in stating that I honestly believe that, though the dispute in question presented many difficulties, it could have been surmounted by the court, and ought to have been surmounted. It is quite probable that the court would not have succeeded in giving g-sneral satisfaction in all directions, yet I am convinced that it was quite within its power, and therefore within its duty, to have drafted or arranged an award that would have assisted in a very material degree towards removing many of_ the anomalies and hardships towards individual workers, which undoubtedly exist in the farming industry at the present time, and that the accomplishment of this duty would not have been the cause of bringing about the disastrous results foreshadowed by the court in its deliverances. ! Further, it appears to me to be a most | extraordinary and despotic pro<^eeding to I say that the largest section of the workers in this Dominion ehould be denied the right to have the conditions of tliair livelihood, their wages, and hours of labour fixed by means of that legislation which has been expressly provided for this very purpose. In conclusion, I express the hope that these who have it in thiir power to prevent a recurrence of what I conceive to j b© a miscarriage of justice will use that power to obviate and remove a disability that can only be regarded by the workers a* a hindrance to their aspirations and [ to their future prosperity. J. A. M'Ctjllotjgh. "Workers' Representative, Arbitration Court. In reply to a question from the reporter, Mr M'Ouilough said that owing to his official position he nxust refrain from saying a good many things to the farm workers that He would otherwise have said. He would, however, express the hope that they would not be discouraged, by this temporary rebuff, but that they would rather see in it an additional reason for more complete organisation, so that the victories of the future would wipe out all memory of the defeats of the {past.