SERIOUS INDISCRETION.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143787, 10 May 1912, Page 2

SERIOUS INDISCRETION.

ON PART OF MR. LAURENSON. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, May 9. Tho Post deals trenchantly with some, remarks made by Mr. Laurenson to a . deputation the other day. In the course of an article it says; “The Minister remarked that it appeared to him that only a fool or a quibbling lawyer ■ could so read the provision.” As the ; principle involved is very important we shall repeat the matter in dispute. Mr. . Justice Sim’s ruling was that when employers entered into contracts with apprentices on the basis of existing awards the employers were not bound to vary the rale of wages (during the term of | the contract) in deference to a differ- | ence in the schedule fixed by a new , award covering the whole industry. , There is surely a largo economic and legal principle at stake there, and .if : it'is “folly” to stand for the principle ; of a, contract, then New Zealand has t many thousands of people glad to be , regarded as such “fools” _ by Mr. I Laurenson. However, that not the j main question which we have in mind, j even if public opinion supports the com- : plainant union, and the proof is yet j to come, we are sure, that the public-j must be against Mr. Laurenson’s la- ; mentablo language. We do not assume I that he intended to be deliberately dis- j respectful to a high tribunal, but his '! blazing indiscretion amopnts to a serious i offence, A Minister of the Crown , has practically blurted out, on ex parte • evidence, an invitation to the public of New Zealand to regard the President of the Arbitration Court as a “fool or a quibbling lawyer.” This is not Mr. Laurenson’s first offence as an assailant of the Judges. Two ses- ■ sions ago he made an intemperate at- : tack in the House of Representatives, but he was then a private member, and I his action, though reprehensible, was I not so mischievous as his present lapse, ; which the red Federation of Labour ’ must hail with delight.”