THE STRIKE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 76, 29 November 1913, Page 5

THE STRIKE.

THE POSITION EXPLAINED.

EMPLOYERS WILL NOT BUDGE.

[Per Press Association.] j Wellington, November 128. The Employers, Farmers and Citizens' Defence Committee had a meeting to-night to consider the proposal to hand over the dispute to Sir Joshua Williams to arbitrate upon. Tlie following report of the proceedings is supplied to thy Press: — "A conference was held on October 28, before the Prime Minister (the Hon \V. F. Massey), of representatives of the shipping companies, Harbor Hoard, and representatives of the Waterside Workers' Union, the latter being headed by Mr W. T. Young. Certain proposals were made by the employers' representatives, which the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union rejected. During the conference the Prime Minister suggested Sir Joshua Williams might be willing to »sct as arbitrator, but the proposal wl'h coldly received by the representatives of the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union

"On tlie morning of October 29 a mass meeting of the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union was held, and later in the day, Mr W. T. Young waited upon the chairman of the Shipowners' Committee (Mr \Y. A. Kennedy), and informed him that the waterside workers he represented had 'turned down' the proposals made by the employers. The chairman of the Shipowners' Committee then asked Mr Young whether the suggestion made by the Prime .Minister, that Sir Joshua Williams should be asked to ace as arbitrator, had been considered. Mr Young then replied that the proposal had not been put before the meeting, but when he returned to it he would put the proposal to the meeting. At S.'SO p.m. of the same day, Mr Young again called upon the chairman of the Shipowners' Committee. He then made a statement to him. Mr N. Galbraith and Mr D. Aiken were present. This statement was as follows :

The men want the agreement reinstated without any guarantee as to stop-work meetings, especially in view of the agreement being a national one. They are of opinion that any such condition put into tlie agreement should be considered and discussed when the new national agreement comes forward next year. Such a proposition, if agreed to, would then apply to all ports of Xew Zealand. Respecting the question of Mr Justice Williams, the men are of opinion that there is nothing to arbitrate upon, except one point, that is: Whether the agreement shall be reinstated or otherwise.

"The statement was taken down verbatim at the time. It was read over to Mr Young. He confirmed it. "The Employers, Farmers and Citizens' Defence Committee now states emphatically that the time has gone by for further negotiations. Work at the ports is now progressing in a manner completely satisfactory to the employers, and they have no intention whatever of entering into agreements or understandings of any sort whatsoever that will in any way place them in such a position as will in any degree prejudice their relations with thousands of unionists now at work in all the ports, whom they are already morally and legally committed to. Finally, the Employers, Farmers and Citizens' Defence Committee wish it to be understood, as plainly as possible, that they will not meet, negotiate, treat or confer with the Federation of Labor or any representative thereof." THE FEDERATION OF LABOR.

The Federation of Labor officials stated to-night in reference to the employers' refusal to submit the dispute to the arbitrament of Sir Joshua Williams: "It now appears that the sole reason actuating employers in continuing the struggle was a desire to wipe out all forms of organisation not palatable to them." The sole responsibility rests upon the employers. All the unions engaged in the strike were sincere in their desire to see a speedy settlement. BEFORE THE COURT. STRIKE-LEADER CASES. * Wllington, November 28. At the conclusion of Mr Wili'ord's address on behalf of Young, Mi- O'Regan was about to address the court when Mr Ostler objected, on the ground that the procedure only provided for one counsel on each side to address the court. He had no objection on other grounds. His Worship said that he would allow Mr O'Regan to proceed with his address so long as he used arguments different from those submitted by Mr Wilford.

This assurance was given, and Mr O'Regan then proceeded. He traversed the history of the Police Offences Act, and when and how it was brought into force.

Mr Ostler, in reply, contended that not one authority quoted by his friend had any direct bearing on the case. The crime of inciting was complete without the crime incited having been committed. He affirmed that up to the date of the utterance of the words the accused was practically the uncrowned king of the waterfront. MV Wilford: There is no evidence of that! Mr Ostler: Tt is a matter of common knowledge. Yp to the time of the making of the speech by the accused,

mobs held the waterfront, and all law and order was in abeyance. The words uttered showed that the accused had in his mind that the reign of lawlessness was a thing that the Government would put down by the police. Then lie advised them that if the police hit them to hit back. The effect was to encourage his hearers to go on with their lawlessness. It was a reasonable inference that the subsequent disturbances were the effect of this man's words. It was a question of fact to ho decided by bis 'Worship. It did not matter whether he connected the subsequent riots with this man's words or not.

His Worship intimated that in view of the importance of the questions raised, he would take time to consider the matter, and give his decision at as early a date as possible. In answer to counsel, his Worship said that he did not think it was necessary to go into the question of sureties at the present time. Accused was remanded to Thursday, December 4. George Bailey, some time chairman of the strikers' open-air meetings in Wellington, was charged with inciting people to commit a breach ol the peace. Mr J. P. O'Regan. who appeared for the defence, agreed, to accused being bound over, but asked that sureties be not, made too heavy, or accused would not be able to find them. The Magistrate remarked that as Bailey did not appear to have been a. leader, he would lie bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in his own recognisance of £2OO, and two sureties of £2OO each.

Peter Eraser, secretary of the Social Democratic Party, was similarly charged, and was bound over for the same in similar sureties as Bailey. A charge against Eraser for having incited resistance of the police was withdrawn.

The cases of Semple, Holland and Barker were remanded to December 4, when the decision in Young's case will be given, counsel stating that the defence in each case would be similar to that in Young's.