The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1890.

Timaru Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4929, 28 August 1890, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1890.

Since the publication of our avticle reviewing Sir Robert Stout's letter on tbe "Whitcombe and Tombs dispute, our attention has been directed to tbe Threats and Molestations Bill, which was before Parliament m the session of 1885. It waß a Government measure and was introduced m the Legislative Council by the then Colonial Secretary, Mr Buckley. 16 passed the Council without difficulty, and m the House of | Representatives the second reading waß moved by Sir Robert Stout (then Mr Stout) on the dny previous to the prorogation, and after tbe passing of tbe Appropriation Act. It will be remembered that m the Whitcombe and Tombs dispute Sir Robert Stout heartily championed the Maritime Council m all that they bad done, inoluding the use of a threat of a general strike. According to Sir Robert, if the law of the colony was ngainst the course pursued by the Maritime Council, the law should be nlterfid immediately to meet tbe case.; That is what he says m 1890 when be is out of Parliament, but what did he say m 1885 when he was Premier and Attorney-General ? The answer is that he askedjthe House to pass the Threats and Molestations BHl — a Bill to amend tbe criminal law relating to violence, thveats, and molestations. The amendment waß not to be m the direction of giving labour organisations greater latitude m their disputes with em--1 ployers, very far from it. The Threats and Molestations Bill provided, inter alia, that every person who should molest or obstruct any person with a view to coerce such person, being a master, to dismiss or cease to employ any workman, or to alter the mode of carrying on his business, or the number or description of any persons employed by him, should be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months. Now it is undeniable that the actions proposed to be made criminal by that Bill are the identical actions m which tbe Maritime Council were engaged m their dispute with Wbitcombe and Tombs, and which actions Sir Robert Stout m 1890 Bays are perfectly justifiable ! The second reading was not pressed, for the simple reason that Sir Robert Stout's own followers showed themselves decidedly hostile. Mr Seddon said : — " He was surprised that tbe Government should have brought down such a Bill at so late a stage of the session. The English Acb had been passed only after seriouß outrageß had been committed; but nothing of the kind had as yet taken place m this colony. To pass this Bill meant legißlating m the interest of capital against labour. There was no necessity for the Bill, and it was an insult to the working men of New Zealand to bring forward such a measure." Seeing how the Bill was likely to fare, Sir Robert consented to withdraw it. He admitted that it was a measure which ought to be weighed carefully ; and then he gave his reason for the admission. It was not because he objected to the principle of the Bill otto the severity of the penalties, but merely because "it gave the Jnßtices a power at present exercised by the Supreme Court." If the Bill had gone on, ho no doubt would have amended that provision m Committee, and that would have been bis only concession to the labour agitators. The most devoted follower of Sir Robert Stout will admit that his recent letter on the Wbitcombe and Tombs dispute reads as a queer commentary on bis Threats and Molestations Bill. Tet there is an interval of only five years between the two ; and at the beginning of that period, when Sir Robert was supporting a Bill which would, at the bidding of two Justices of the Peace, have sent members of the Maritime Oonnoil to gaol for three months for their action towards Whitcombe and Tombs, he was not only a. man of mature years and a seasoned politician, but he bad achieved tho position of Premier. How are wo to account for the entire chnnge of opinion — the terribly sharp curve, or, to put it moro correctly, the rapid if not elegant motion of " right about face " P A correspondent of tho Otayo Daily Times makes a suggestion, which, if it credits Sir Robert Stout with a shallow kind of worldly wisdom, says, but little for his political honesty or his regard for true statesmanship : — J' The fact of his having proposed such legislation stands m violent contrast with his present attitude as the defender of the very practices which such legislation would have effectually suppressed. Now here indeed iB something which transcends the merely comical. It may be called even tragi-oomieal— enough to • raako angels weep and wise men laugh.' Sir R. Stout when oooupying the responsible position of Premier proposed (following m the wake of previous Imperial legislation) to enact a etvingent law to prevent such molestation as that attempted by the Labour Council. Now whenjout of office, and on the cvo of a general eleotion, he comes forward to

I defend such conduct ! Docs this re- ( markable transformation indicate an honest change of opinion or an opportune device to curry favour with the working classes, who will exercise a potential voice m the retorn of representatives ? I advise working men to nse their common sense m answering that question. It may assist them to know that it is credibly reported that Sir R. Stout when recently m WellingI'ton told some of his quonaain sup- | porters m the Legislatm-e that if they had only allowed him to carry the Bill above mentioned that would have settled the labour difficulty."