OUR MELBOURNE LETTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2975, 22 March 1911, Page 53

OUR MELBOURNE LETTER.

CFrom Our Own Correspondent.) MELBOURNE, March 8. When Mr Fisher addressed a great meeting in the Melbourne Town Hall last week he formally opened the platform campaign on the question of the projected amendments to the Federal Constitution. The meeting was preceded by a band and torchlight procession from the Trades Hall, and under the circumstances it is not greatly to be wondered at that the hall was filled to its utmost capacity, and that there were enough people outside to make an overflow meeting. The audience was naturally not merely friendly, but enthusiastic, and the Prime Minister had consequently a very pleasant task. He is not an inspiring speaker. He lacks the eloquence of Mr Deakin on the other side, and the sharp biting lively phrases of his own Attorney-general (Mr Hughes). Hence it happens that the best exposition of the case from the Ministerial point of view is not to be found in the Prime Minister's speech, but in the Ministerial manifesto which was issued only this morning, and which is understood to be the work of Mr Hughes. # The manifesto points out that in the 10 vears since federation vast developments have taken place in tiny industrial and "commercial systems of Australia, in common with the rest of the world. There developments have effected almost revolutionary changes in methods of production and distribution in trade and oonimeroe and in social life. Capital and labour have become organised on an immeasurably widefc basis. Groups of capitalists now control operations, not merely in one particular industry and over a comparatively small area, but in the majority of instances throughout an entire 'continent, and in some notorious cases control output and prices over the civilised world. Capital controlling these industries has organised, and labour has followed Suit. The Commonwealth Parliament, which was " supposed to be clothed with power to deal with these vitally important ters," passed legislation which was now so much waste paper. After all the judicial decisions the Arbitration Act stands stripped of nearly every useful provision, and since the decision declaring the common rule invalid, it is "maimed and almost useless.'' The most is made of the invalidity of the new protection provisions of the Harvester Excise Act, and of the impotence of the anti-trust legislation, and then the nationalisation of monopolies proposal is dealt with. It is not sufficient, says the manifesto, that the people should have the power to regulate and control trusts, bat when these have succeeded in becoming a monopoly, power should be given to nationalise the monopoly. "We do not ask for power to nationalise all industries," the writers proceed; "we ask only power to nationalise those industries from which competition is excluded, and which enable a very few rich men to exploit the whole community." It is said that since Parliament has the power to say what is a monopoly, it* may declare anything to be a monopoly. Such a statement does not deserve serious consideration. The States have this power now. and have always had it. They can nationalise all industries of the country; they have never nationalised one. . . . We want these powers over trade and commerce, corporations, trusts, combines, monopolies, and industrial matters, in order that the Commonwealth may do that fox which it was created, which requires doing urgently in the best interests of the whole community, and which the States cannot effectively deal with. We want the trade and commerce power without reservation, because without it there is endless confusion, and all legislation dealing with trusts and monopolies will be hopelessly ineffective. We want the whole of the powers asked for in order that, once the Federal Parliament legislates under a power enumerated in the constitution, there shall be no doubt as to its constitutionality. Surely the people are entitled to something more than endless litigation ? THE OTHER SIDE. Mr Deakin opened the other .side in * speech at Ballarat two nights afterwards. He said that Mr Fisher's speech was remarkable, not so much for what it said, as for what it omitted. In the first place, the Prime Minister ?aid nothing about the first proposed alteration designed to give the Commonwealth complete powers over trade and commerce. Mr Deakin's speech was a good general advocacy of the advantages of retaining an effective State control. But the best criticism of the Government from the po:nt of view of the man with a small knowledge of our own and other constitutions, ha,s come not from Mr Deakin, but from Mr E. F. Mitchell, K.C., one of the leaders of the Victorian bar,- and one of the best constitutional lawyers in the Commonwealth. Mr Mitchell spoke as one unconnected with any political party. But the matter he truly says, stands 'outside party politics, and goes to the very root of the Federal compact. It should be explained briefly, before dealing with Mr Mitchell's view—contained in a two-column letter to the press w ha£ alterations are proposed in the Constitution. In the first place, the Parliament at present has power tol deal with " trade and commerce with other countries and among the States."" It is proposed to strike out all the words except "trade and commerce." In the second place, Parliament has now power to legislate concerning " conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of one State." For that "it is proposed to substitute "labour and employment, including—(a) the wages and conditions of labour and employment in any trade, industry, or calling; and (h) the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment on or about railways the property of any State." Leaving out the nationalisation

proposals, it will be seen that these include the whole scope of trade, commerce, and industry. As Mr Deakin put it. there will not be a pedlar in the backyard or a transaction of the greatest moment excluded from it." Now, Mr Mitchell starts off by saying, " I have no animosity whatever against the Federal Labour party. Apart from a natural feeling of gratitude, which I cannot help feeling for a party which has done so much indirectly to create work for my profession, and which by the proposed amendments of the constitution promises so much more, such little intercourse as I have had with those of its leaders whom I have met has _ been _ of the pleasantest nature." But his objection is to the proposed amendments which transpose a constitution which evoked the highest praise of statesmen into an unscientific kind of mongrel between two entirely different kinds of Federal constitutions. "It would soon make the position of the States and of the people of Australia so intolerable under it that unification would become a necessity." A federation consists of a nice adjustment of powers between the central Government and the constituent State Governments, but the proposed changes make no attempt to adjust powers. In fact, they expressly give overriding powers. The proposal's take no powers away from the States, but by section 109, where a Federal and a State law is in conflict, the Federal law prevails. Consequently MiMitchell predicts that there will be a constant crop of litigation with the object of determining whether a given State law is in conflict with a Federal law. THE DEATH PENALTY. Alfred Wilson Smart was executed in the Fremantle Gaol yesterday morning for the murder on or about March 14 of last year at Perth of Ethel Harris. Smart, who was already married, had lived with Ethel Harris for five years. She disappeared in March last, and soon after Smart married Mary Jane Pemberthy. He said that Ethel Harris had gone to her friends at Ballarat, but this story was shown to be false, and the gravest suspicion attached to Smart. Then he was arrested for bigamy, and got two years, for it was shown that he had. a wife living in Victoria. In gaol he preferred the deepest ignorance as to the whereabouts of Ethel Harris. Miss Pemberthy and her mother saw him, but to them he said solemnly that he knew nothing of Ethel Harris. Meanwhile the detectives kept up the -search, following up several supposed clues, which led nowhere. At last, on November 23, the almost unrecognisable remains of the woman were found buried beneath the floor of an old forge attached to the foundry of Messrs. Hoskings and Co., of North Perth, where Smart had been employed as a driver. The evidence, of course, was purely circumstantial, but the chain was made surprisingly complete. The cool villainy of the murderer'was revealed by the evidence of Miss Pemberthy, who said that on the day she went through the.form of marriage with him he handed her the plain gold band ring of the murdered woman, saying, "Keep it; it was my mother's, and if it brings you as much luck as it brought her we shall be happy." It was sought, as in the Crippen case, to prove that the evidence of identification was unsatisfactory. The jury was satisfied, however, and Smart was found guilty and sentenced to death, Mr Justice M'Millan remarking that the_ crime was one conceived with deadly deliberation, and executed with unflinching brutality. During his last imprisonment he wrote to Miss Pemberthy asking her to come and see him. He worried oyer the fact that she took no notice of his letter. "T only wanted her to come and say she forgave me; surely that was little enough to ask," he said.- He left behind him various written statements, 'the purport of which is not yet known. Towards the last he wag so distressed that he waa not able to write, and he dictated his communications. He died, however, without showing the slightest sign of emotion. THE HARVESTER STRIKE, The disastrous strike in the Victorian harvester-making industry continues. The men are determined apparently not to go back, and their leadeis are talking bravely of victory, but none the less the men have shifted their ground considerably. The "ultimatum" was that after a certain date the unionists would not work with non-unionists: When the day arrived, though there were only 20 or 30 nonunionists in some 2000 employees, the unionists refused to work. Then the manufacturers who had only union labour, but who none the less believed in an "open shop," closed their works, feeling, as they were members of the Chamber of Manufacturers, that it would be unfair to keep on their works while their friends who were fighting for a principle were closed down. So there are well over 20C0 men now out. Daily meetings are held, and in these grievances as towages and'other "pin-pricks" are put forward as the real reason for the strike. The employers have been asked for a conference, but they reply that on the principle of employing unionists or non-unionists alike there is no room for compromise and no use for a conference. But on Monday last the manufacturers decided to open their works to all employees who would admit that they were willing to work with non-unionists. There was a very poor response, and practically work is still at a standstill. There is no secret that in the inner circle of the Trades Hall the strike is regarded as ill-advised. It is on a matter' of big labour principle, and one union or one industry is not more concerned in it than any other. Yet the harvester hands went out without consulting any of the other unions. Labour members of Parliament address the daily meetings of the men and put the best front possible on their action. Last week two senators delivered addre&s£& which looked like thinly-

veiled hints to the men to go back on the ground that they had received a large increase of wages, and the other matter could stand. .Next day Mr Solly, M.L.A., went further. He asserted his strong adherence to unionism, but said that if the only thing in the fight was the question of working with non-unionists, he would say fearlessly it was better to settle the matter and give way on the disputed point. There was a good deal of dissent to this, and to the Test of Mr Solly's speech. Since then the men have been growing more incensed at it, and at last night's meeting it was laid down strongly that.Labour members of Parliament would be welcome at the meetings, but they must come to support the policy of the executive. Apparently impartial advice is not wanted. The curious thing is that no other Parliamentary leader has had the courage to come forward ana to support Mr Solly to the extent at least of saying, that a man should be encouraged to speak the feelings within him. A timber stackers' strike at the Melbourne wharves gives an idea of the industrial unrest and of the lack of principle, which sometimes animates groups of men. This is the ninth strike in the industry in less than three years. When the eighth strike was on a few weeks ago a settlement was arrived at by the appointment of a special Wages Board. Hitherto the Wages Board in the woodworking industry has fixed the stackers' wages. Having got the board, the men nominated their own chairman. The board sat, and the chairman sent to Sydney to find out something of wages ruling there. Instantly the men protested, and another strike occurred. The men wanted Is 5d an hour. They accepted a board which they thoHght would give it,, but as soon as they found that the question was to be judicially settled there was a protest and a strike!