MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13662, 28 March 1908, Page 5

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS.

HOW^THE ££w tS ENFORCED.

SYMPATHISERS CANNOT BE

Vl^ PUNISHED,

' ;WELLINGTON; March $7. "The position' at tKe present time/ *said the Hon.. J. A. Mtflar to a New Zealand Times reporter yesterday, when 'questioned regarding tne continuance of the strike' "is that the Governmenthas made a demlnd fbr.payment of the fine imposed by the Arbitration Court. Failing payment theredf ; the necessary legal action wilTbe t^ken/' Asked particularly what other action the Goyer-nment j^oj|osed to taie, Mr Millar -said ' the J Government haa no power to compel the men to go-back to work nor 'dwners J to open their mines to work.- "There is no such law in' f this country, nqr in anyother country, so far as I TmbwV Wliere. people ; seem to be' making the mistake is an I thinkitotf tfrafc; a strike ti a continuous* p%nfcl.^jr-Myj& f ih©':lbt !&& NfcJwcei oir.that point, ajjd J find that the striker when committed, is, an offence within it-? 1 self. The law;' has been broken immediately it takes place. \ "There are others, again, who seem, to think that auction snduld be taken against the unions' which have been contributing money" to ihe support of tfce strikers, on-,the. ground that they are aiding and' abetting the strikers. In this . theyarerlaboxtring ; under- a -xte* liisioni Aiding' and abetting an offence consist* in the do&gTaf/sqmething -prior to, or concurrently with the committal of the offence^ and^not after the offence has been committed.* the offence being eqinpleto itself when the strike has talsen . plac6. .Subsequent action cannot aid and abet the committal of an offence which has already been committed.

v< The Government is exercising all the powers given' 1?o it under the Act to see that the award of the Court is enforced, and is giving the men time to, consider their action before "doing anything. So far no effort has been made to comply with the order, but the Department is at once taking the neces-. sary steps to> enforce iti" The Hon: D^r.- Fjndlay, as AttorneyGeneral, was 'afterwards asked for a farther elucidation of the legal point. "I not only share the view or the Mm--t t ister of Labour on this matter," replied |Dr,*Findlay to a question, "but I adyised the Government shortly before the strike took place as to what steps rfspulcPbo taken to punish those who 6idod and abetted the strike. ■ There is, no doubt 1 a great deal of misconception, as to the powers>6f the Government in connection with this matter. It is quite, clear under section 15 of the Act of 1 1905 that a strike is hot a continuing: offence.; .. ' / , •: "It seems to me quite clear that to, encourage men who have struck and have been* punished for their offencq to. continue idle or 'refrain from' returning to their former employment is not an offence under section 15 or any other section in that statute. There is, more^ over, another and entirely independent; difficulty in dealing with some of those ,who are advising, the men to; continue; ■their present attitude. Section 15 prof tides that 'any industrial union or in~. dustrial association or employer or any worker, whether a member of any such' iunion or association or not, who aids or abets a strike is guilty of an offence/ : From this, it woujd seem that the aidr> ing and abetting is only an offence if ; done by a worker, meaning, no' doubt, (a worker in the tradejwr industry in ' connection witK~which tKe strike has] occurred. Thus, the section does not: ■lipply, in my opinion, to those engaged' in an entirely different calling who aid or abet a strike in the coal industry. • "It ia~elear from what has happened' recently that the amended Act of 1905 requires revision as it stands at present. The Government has under the circumstances been, entirely limited to proceedings against, either the union or the men. Proceedings were taken against the union because it had in this case called a special meeting and formally passed a resolution which was entered in the minute book proposing a strike. For this the union was fined £76; and failing payment by the union the members are individually liable up to a limit of JElireafcTi. To now proceed against the men independently would be to punish them twice over, for; no doubt in; fixing*, the fine the Arbitration Court considered the conduct of the members or the union and intended the punishment to be, both collective and individual."