THE SHIPPING STRIKE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16464, 17 June 1919, Page 5

THE SHIPPING STRIKE.

POSITION IN AUSTRALIA. UNIONIST CAMP SERIOUSLY DIVIDED. Much has been cabled of late regarding the serious position of the maritime .strikes in Australia, but little, has been said as to the real causes oi the prevailing discontent. Inquiries made locally failed to elicit any reliable information, but Australian newspapers to hand by the last mail throw some light on the situation. In the Melbourne Argus of May 23 tbe following statement appeared:— “For the moment the terrorist policy of the wharf labourers has succeeded. Out of a. union with a membership of 1000, only one loyalist yesterday presented himself for work on the wharves. A few others declared that they were on their way to the wharves, but were advised by the police to go back. Two or three were assaulted in the streets. “The unionists, who gloat over the success of their policy of violence in driving the. loyalists from tlfe wharves, have informed the shipowners that they are now prepared to carry out the work of loading and unloading the ships—but on their oivj conditions. They demand tho restoration of all the privileges which they lost as a result of the 1917 strike. “If tho seamen’s strike is settled work on the ships will then be- resumed by loyalists under police protection. There are now 600 police in the city, and 600 special constables are to be called up to-day.” MOB RULE PREVAILS. It appeal's that tbe body of men known as the loyalists are willing to continue work, but in spite of Govern-, i.uut protection tho mobs continue to hold sway on the waterfront. On May 23, the following appeared in the Argus “Mob rule holds sway on the wharves, the reckless element among the strikers have terrorised the loyalists to such an extent that they did not put In an appearance yesterday. For two days the loyalists wore tho victims of cowardly and brutal assaults while endeavouring to carry on the work of the port in the interstate trade. None of the attackers were arrested, and, losing faith in the protection that was promised to them, the loyalists felt that there was nothing but to yield to tire policy of ‘direct action’ put into operation against them. “For tho present, the position, is that these men have been prevented from earning their living, and supporting their families, by acts that arc flagrant breaches of the law, and the amazing part is that no one is to bo brought to account. It is a poor vindication flf authority the- policy that has been pursued simply offering a premium to further outrages. Tho only reason why tho waterfront was peaceful yesterday was because the loyalists were not working, as, had they attempted to man the steamers, there would have been tv repetition of the events of previous days, with this difference—that the strikers would probably have boon bolder in consequence of their immunity hitherto. BRUTE FORCE AGAINST LOYALISTS. “It was made evident yesterday morning that tho strikers intended pursuing the policy of brute force to keep loyalists away from the wharves. Shortly after 10 o’clock four loyalists were set on as they left the Flinders Street Station. Tho attacking party had the advantage of numbers, and tho loyalists were quickly separated. They were subjected to rough handling till rescued by the police, but again no arrests were made, the constables evidently performed what they understood to bo their duty in protecting the men .from further violence. It was stated yesterday that the attacks were being carried a further stage, s as an elderly loyalist was assaulted at his house in a northern suburb. POSITION OF THE UNION. “Having satisfied themselves that the loyalists have been disposed of, it was suggested yesterday in circles well qualified to form an opinion that the strikers may -(present themselves for work to-day. There is reason for behoving that tho returned soldiers who belong to the union have expressed some dissatisfaction with the way this ‘unofficial’ strike is being carried on. v lt is stated that they want to know who invited or directed the members of the union to refuse work, and how the stoppage was brought about. LOYALISTS v. STRIKERS. Serious- conflicts a.rci recorded between the strikers and the loyalists, and the latter were not slow to express their indignation at the lack of slipport shown by the police. As showing tlie serious position existing in Victoria, the following from tho .Argus of May 26 is of particular interest; — - ‘The strike situation unfortunately appears to have passed the point at which there was any reasonable hope of a settlement. It is now a fight to the finish between tho Government and the strikers. At a mass meeting yesterday tho loaders of the strikers declared emphatically that tho loyalists would not he allowed to work on tbe wharves and wheat stacks if they could help it, and this morning the Government proposes to take up tlie challenge. “During the past four days all work has been, suspended on the wharves, and tlie authorities have deliberately avoided a conflict with the strikers, preferring to give them undisputed possession of tho field until they wore prepared to move. From this morning that policy will cease. The loyalists have been invited to muster at the corner of Flinders and Market Streets at a quarter to 8 o’clock, and what are described ns ‘ample’ nrrarguments have been made to ensure their protection from assault. “One of tho most significant facts about tho trouble in Victoria is the presence in, Melbourne of several men who have arrived siiice the trouble in Fremantle, and who are said to have been the leaders of tho wharf labourers there. Their presence in Melbourne at the j)resent juncture reveals the menace to constituted authority that lies behind the strike.” Later information shows that although the loyalists received adequate police protection, tho strike continued unabated.