The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1890.

Timaru Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4913, 2 September 1890, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1890.

It will be seen by our Parlianeniary report that n long debate lus taken place m the House of Represtntutives on the subject of tbe presen; labour troubles as they Lave developel themselves m New* Zealand. The mitiativc was taken by Mr Fish, who iroved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of creating an opportunity for discussing one or two point 6 m connection with tho strike. The debate lasted all tbe aftex - noon, but w'jat wns said, does not appear calculated to be of much assistance m bringing about a settlement. It is all very well to talk of a Council of Conciliation, anl under the ordinary conditions of a strike sucb a body might be eminently useful. But the special feature of the present strike, as far as New Zealand is concerned, is that there are no grounds for arbitration m- oooiprnniinn. The quarrel is not a New Zealand quarrel at all. The Union Steam Ship Company had no dispute either with their officers or men. Everyone was satisfied with existing arrangements. Tbe Union Company are being boycotted because they are connected with the Shipowners' Association of Australia, and tbe Australian Bbipowners have a disagreement with their oScers. If the latter would consent to sever tbeir connection with other Australian maritime labour unions, there would probably be no difficulty m coming to a settlement as far as the officers nre concerned. But it would be a settlement m Australia and not m New Zealand. There are other complications — the Shearers' Union dispute and tbe ecamen's ulleged grievances — whicb might come to the front if tbe officers' business were disposed of, but at present it is the officers' quarrel vhich is the ostensible cause of tbe Australian strike. How can that be settled here ? As the attempt is being made to block the company m New Zealand, we cannot see how they can be blamed for endeavoring to carry on tbeir business with free labour. If their own officers and men chose to go to work there would be nothing m tha world to prevent them doing so at rates which even the secretary of the Maritime Council does not find any fanlt with. Moat people will be of opinion that MiFish's object m bringing the strike into debate m tho House was to enable him to attack the Government. One of his points was that the military had been called out when there was no necessity for auoh a step. We' incline to the opinion that tho Government did not act very judiciously m openly bringing forward a detachment of the Permanent Artillery. The police force m New Zealand, even m the cities, is quite insufficient to ensure the maintenance of order m troublous times, and it is clear to every impartial person that at the present juncture extra protection is necessary. In Dnnedin especially there is evidence that a riot might occur at any moment. But, all things considered, we should prefer tho services of special constables to tbe services of soldiers unless the disturbances were to become very serious indeed. But admitting so much, we cannot go as far as Mr Fish m censuring the Government. When one talks of the military being called out, the meaning is that recourse is had to armed men. Both Mr Fish und Mr i Ballanoo spoke m that strain, and yet they knew very well that tho detachment of Permanent Artillery came on to the scene totally unarmed. There is not much fear of citizens, either orderly or disorderly, being shot down by soldiers who have nothing but their fists to do battlo with, Mr Fish also sought to harass the Government indirectly by an attack on tho Railway Commissioners for their strenuous efforts to prevent the trade of tho country being blocked. Tbo Houso and tbo community will, however, uphold tho Commissioners, and m any caso their notion, which ia perfectly independent, cannot be imputed as an offence to tho Government who havo no more to do with it than tho man m tho moon. What tbo country expects tbo Government to do ut tho present juncture is to uphold the authority of tbo law, und they certainly have not as yet erred by a too zealous performance of that-duty.

Thb Auckland Evening Star has published some interesting figures compiled from the last report of the Commissioner for Labonr m the United States, showing the losses Buffered by employers and employees m that conntry through strikes and lockouts. The report deals especially with the six years 1881-1886, during which 3902 strikes occurred, involving 22,304- establishments (an average of 5.7 to each strike), and 1,323,203 employees. The number of establishments m which lock- outs occurred was 3214. The loss to the strikers for the last six years was £10,360,000, and the loss to employees from lock-outs was £1,630,000, makling a totnl loss to employees m 24,518 establishments of £11,990,000. Estimating tho average wages of the successful strikers, and the average advance m wages secured by strikes, the time required by the successful strikers to recoup their loss at the advanced wngeß is 76 days. Of the partly successful it would teke 361 days, or a year and one fifth of working time to recover the wage loss. Taking the successful aud 'partly successful strikers together, the time required for recovery of lost wages would be 99 workiDg days. The nßsistance given to strikers during the period of sis years covered by the investigation, so far as ascertainable, amounted to a total sum of £886,000, representing little more than 8J per cent, of the wage loss incurred by the employees. The employers' losses through strikes for the six years amounted to £6,120,000, and through lockouts £692,000, or a total loss of £6,812,000. The number of employees m all establishments before the strikes occurred was 1,060,835, and after the strikes 1,635,047 — a loss of 25,788. There were 103,038 new employees engaged after the strikes, and 37,483 were brought from other places than those ia which the strikes ocenrred, showing the percentage of new hands after strike of the total number of employees before the strike to be 6.20, while of those brought from other places compared with total number of new employees engaged nfter the strike the percentage was 36.38.