THE POSITION DISCUSSED.

Otago Witness, Issue 2861, 13 January 1909, Page 31

THE POSITION DISCUSSED.

OWNERS' MESSAGE TO SIR J. Q. WARD. THE PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY. Last night we received the following teWiam from the Prime Minister (Sir J. G. Ward): — As it may be of interest at the present ; juncture I "forward you herewith a copy j of a telegram which I received from Mr S. Free, of Reef ton, on Saturday last, and of mv reply thereto this morning. Mr Free's message was as follows : — • Hen. Sir J. G. Ward, Oamaru. "We have just been informed by the | Miners' Union of your proposal to settle ' the labour difficulty by arringing for th» the Government Insurance Department to take all the risks under the Workers' Compensation Act without examination, the Government giving . an indemnity against loss, and the ' employers to be covered) until Parliament i can deal with the difficulty. We think ' it will enable you to appieciate our position if we briefly state our views on fha whole subject. In the first place, however incomprehensible it may seem, j none of the mine-owners were aware that so-called ' miners' camplaint ' was the subject of legislation until the a«t be- ! came law. The Employers' Federation ■ secretary believed that the industrial ' di&sases clause was taken from the English act, and that it would be a wa-=te of t time to oppose it, and so he gave the matter no special attention. Had the mine-owners been aware of the true position, very strong reasons indeed cou'd

have beep given against the inclusion ci pneumoconiosis in the bill, one of the principal being the impossibility of discriminating between pneumoconiosis and ordinary phthisis. Healthy men seldom suffer, from their "working conditions, and if they used* the appliances provided they would practically never be affected. Mining is not suitable work for consumptives, and all of them would be so affected by such work as to enable a friendly medical officer to class them as sufferers from pneumoconiosis. The accident insurance rate on mine workers is 455, plus 10 per cent, added to cover the recent extension of liability. This is a very heavy tax on an industry which, with two^ or three exceptions, - shews very little profit. Unless the consumptives now in the mines contract out and by medical examination, we are able in future to exclude workmen predisposed 1 to phthisis a number of mines must close down sooner or later, as the burden will' be greater than we can bear. We realise that we are engaged in a life andi death struggle. As the la\» now Stands we can obey it, but the two local members of Parliament say section 17 must go. If we are denied the right to examine our men, and pneumoconiosis remains in section 10 we are ruined. We are advised that our present action is lawful, whereas ' if we accept the .present proposal to effect insurance and resume work should Parliament refuse to give us relief our hands would be tied. Is it possible to forecast- - with any degree of' certainty what action " Parliament will take when asked to deal with the difficulty. We realise tift ■trength of the Labour vote and the manner - in which members may be influenced, and i feel that if we surrender our rights now we are handing ourselves over, bound hand and foot. We do not desire to I embarrass the Government, but we represent over £800,000 of shareholders.' money, invested in local mines, which is now in jeopardy, and so we feel -we have every right to appeal to the head of the Government for some more definite assurance as to the Legislative means by which the difficulty is to be finally settled. May we ask for an early reply, as we are anxious to end the present difficulty a? soon as possible. (Signed) "S. Free, „ "For Mineowners." The Prime Minister replied as follows :*. . , "S. Free, Esq., Reefton. ! "I have to thank you for the views of the mine-owners on the present situation. , " (1) I agree with you that it is amazing that none of the mine-owners were aware that the so-called miners' complaint was the subject of legislation until after the act had passedt The bill was for a long time before a parliamentary committee. Evidence was taken on its. clauses from insurance experts and others as to the extent of the risks and liabili-' ties imposed by the bill, and the Hon. M«' .Millar took special pains to explain thef difference between the bill and the English*' act to which yon refer. I think it is pj\ matter for extreme regret that the mine-' owners did not give some attention to vn bill which they knew must effect themij and urge before /the bill was passed thtf l reasons which ydu now state could have'! been given against the inclusion of pneumoi! coniosis. I wish it to be clearly under- 1 stood, since you touch upon the matter irt! your wire, that the bill was not passed hastily, and that the fullest opportunity*! waa given by the committee to all affected?; by the proposed legislation to state theiir. objections. The omission of the mine?! owners, or those representing them, to/ ! give some attention to clause 10 is, ir* view of the present situation, a matter of regret. " (2) The ground of your insistence upoiS a medical examination is that those among! your men suffering from ordinary phthisic may, if they continue to work, be classed^ by a friendly medical practitioner as aufr ferine from pneumoconiosis. It seems to me thai you greatly over-eatimate the risk of this. I am advised that before a," miner can Tecover compensation for pneu^l moconiosis under clause 10 he, or in cas«j of death, his representatives, must provgj each of the following things: — (a) If he>| contracted the disease after the act camp! into force— that is, after January 1, 190&.J (If it appeared that he had the disease bei| fore that date no compensation could be! recovered.) (b) It must be clearly shown that it is pneumoconiosis and not ordinary phthisis (c) That it is due to the»j' nature of the employment on which the ' miner is engaged during the 12 months' prior to his disablement. The proof 08; these things lies on the miner, and as th« case must be tried by the Arbitration', Court, he must satisfy that court of the ' truth of each of them. The case would' no doubt be fought out in the usual way, and expert medical evidence led on eaclv side. The question of the disease would? not be settled as you suggest by the certificate of a medical practitioner who is letting his friendship control his diagnosis.The point you seem to mis» is that it is not the mine-owners who have to disprove the claim. It is tho miner, or his icpresentatives, who must prove afßrmativelv each of the conditions I have stated. Iff then, I am correctly advised, and if section 10 is limited to genuine cases properly, within its provisions, surely you ate enormou&ly over-estimating the ■'iak* you refer tcr. ' ' As regards further legislation and a, definite statement as to what legislation I propose, before I can be asked to prescribe a remedy I am entitled to be satisfied as to the facts, and obviously these cannot be taken to be established merely by the statements of the other side. I cannot say at present precisely what legislation will be introduced, as the mineowners did not take an opportunity when; the bill was before Parliament of urging the objections they now make. I propose to enable them to do so in a proper way as soon as Parliament meets, and I will base upon whatever facts are established on full inquiry any amendments of the law shown to be necessai*y. If it is shown that the Inclusion of pneumoconiosis

y/il) ruin your industry^ as alleged, then we mu6t bring our act into line with the inperial act, and omit the, disease of pneumoooniosis altogether from our statute. This step would be justified in the in-ter-ests of mine-owners and the miners if such a disaster as you outline is to be the result of keeping the law as it is. If, however, upon inquiry it is found that all that is needed for protection against bogus claims, based upon the friendly medical certificate you mention, then section 10 will be amended to protect the mine-owners from such claims by requiring a method of proof which will limit the liabilities of the genuine cases intended to, be covered by the provisions of clause 1(3 as I have interpreted. " (3) I deaire by every reasonable means to promote a settlement of the present difficulty, and I have a right to rely upon the fair assistance of each side to that end The Government now undertakes to insure owners against pneumocomosis without requiring the medical examination, ar.d protection against pneumoconiofds will be given until Parliament has time to deal with the questions at issue, and it the owners can establish the facts now alleged they can rely with confidence upon euch further protection by law as the reaBonable carrying out of their industry demands. G - AED -