ARBITRATION COURT CRITICISM.

Otago Witness, Issue 3823, 21 June 1927, Page 36

ARBITRATION COURT CRITICISM.

The following appeared in our Second Sdition Inst week :—

MR JUSTICE FRAZER’S VIEWS. WELLINGTON, June 13. Exception to what he described as “u. most unfair and improper suggestion ” was taken by Mr B. L. Hammond in the Arbitration Court to-day, when, during the hearing of the typographical dispute, Mr C. H. Chapman, who appeared for the workers, said that the press possessed a power not held by other industries, and that it would attempt even to intimidate an Arbitration Court and thereby prejudice its employees. Such had been the ease in England, remarked Mr Chapman, with the result that some of the employees impetuously refused to set matter for publication which was obviously unfair to the printing trade employees. He thought there was no danger of such foolish steps in New Zealand, but it was impossible to ignore the fact that very strong and frequently unjust criticism of the Arbitration Court appeared in the press when printing trades awards were due for revision by the court. One was constrained to ask whether it was a new form of propaganda. Mr Hammond (who appeared for the employers) said he objected strongly to the suggestion. It was most unfair and improper.

Mr Justice Frazer: I thought so, too, but apparently Mr Chapman is referring more particularly to an English case. Mr Hammond: It is a most unwise suggestion. His Honor: Never mind! The Arbitration Court is in the melting pot just now. Personally, I do not care, but I am not going to take much notice of the suggestion that the press in New Zealand might be tempted to make statements with a view to influencing the court. Mr Chapman: Well, your Honor, hardly a day goes by without some criticism of the court appearing in the newspapers. His Honor: Yes, but you know what started that. It was started by the farmers, and I do not think it is fair to assume that the criticism of the court during the last few months had anything to do with this dispute.

Mr Hammond: This is what Imprint, the official journal of the printing trade, has to say on the matter: “Should the court _ ignore the evidence of improved conditions obtaining among our Australian neighbours on this occasion, I feel that more drastic means will have to be employed to restore our economic equation with our friends across the Tasman, or we are unworthy of the hTgh traditions that have on occasions in the past characterised our craft.” •

Mr Chapman: May I suggest to the court that Mr Hammond should be perfectly honest and read to the end of the article, in which case he would see that it was written by a contributor, and not by the editor of the journal. Mr Hammond: Some censorship should have been exercised.

Mr Justice Frazer: A journal like that is responsible for the matter that appears in it, editorially or otherwise. However, I know the court has come in for a lot of criticism for months past, but I should be very sorry to think that the newspapers were publishing such criticism just be'cause they had a printing dispute coming before the court.

Mr Chapman: Nevertheless one feels constrained to ask whether it is a new form of propaganda. His Honor: I am quite used to getting it from both sides. Twelve montbs ago the unions were attacking the court. Today it is the employers. I suppose it is due to a little depression in the country. Mr Chapman: Unfortunately I have a knowledge of this press propaganda. ‘‘Surely you do not think it has anything to do with this dispute?” was his Honor’s rejoinder. Mr Chapman (smilingly): We shall call it a coincidence.

Mr W. Scott (from the bench): This criticism has been going on for some time.

Mr Justice Frazer: We are not taking any notice of it anyhow. "I am pleased to hear that,” remarked Mr Chapman. His Honor: It should not have been necessary. _ Mr Chapman: I have been in a good few rows, and I do not care what one side thinks so long as I have done what I thought was the right thing.