The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1901.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 3558, 3 May 1901, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1901.

Mr JvssfeicQ Cooper, sittii.g as President c£ the Arbitration Court, h;;a undeita'xca, t&e. of the Boards of Conciliation, At the sitting of the Court on Tuesday Downing, Mr S. Brown, who is arbitrate.? for the employers in the bootmakers' dispute, offered an explanation of a remark which he had made on the previous da;?, to the effect that the Court was undoing the mischief which had been done by the Conciliation Boards. .He said, that' all he meant was that the mission ntf the Arbitration Court was to make peace. It was then that Mr Justice Cooper spoke up rciy decidedly in favour of the Boards of Conciliation. Ho said, amongst other f hings : —"As tire Boards did not have comp.ilijrv powers, they had to refer matters to the Court if conciliation failed. He would be very sorry if there was any impression in the public mind that the Boards were not a necessary part of the Act. They were very necessary. They were capable of bringing the men and the employers together, and in many instances they had succeeded in conciliating. That was their function." At the same time he thought that the Boards of Conciliation should have the assistance of a skilled clerk to overcome technical difficulties in preparing cases to be laid before the Arbitration. Corrt. Further on his Honour said that "il } Boards of Conciliation were the means e bringing parties to a. dig-

pule together, and of carrying out what was, after all, the primary object of the Act, namely, a conciliatory settlement without. intervention or compulsion on* the part of the Court." Finally his Honour said : "He spoke for his colleagues as well as for himself when he said that) the Boards of Conciliation were an inherent feature of the Act, and, as far as he knew, they had ; done their work faithfully and well." We do not question tliat the Boards have done their work faithfully. They have sometimes talked too much and rather wide of the mark, but have done their best according to their lights. But that is not the question. Have they done their work well, in the sense that they have doiks' it successfully and thus saved reference to the Arbitration Court? In some instances they have succeeded, but those are the exceptions, and a very general opinion prevails that the Boards could advantageously be dispensed with, and all' disputes be at once takctn before the Arbitration Court. We of course agree withi: hiss Honour that the Boaf ds- ar® an inherent' feature- of the Act- At present ' every case: must first go beforef the Board of Conciliation, because' the law'' so provides ; bttt that is a very diffeetit thing to saying that the* Boards- a*c& : an essential feature-, of the systeml legislate the Boards >of - Cone illation out. off existence, and there;would still remain Arbitration Court' which stands as ai bar. to strikes and' acute trade" disturtkive&s: We do not' believe* for a moment that more angry feelings'- would be-stirred; ufr'if: the appeal wers-r direct to' the - Arbitration Court. could try teflfeingrtiie parties to' terms just as the J?6ftrdsF of Conciliation-" tryand it would on4y?b'B-ia case of induce an agreemanfr fthat the final 'power' of computsibn.' would bo exercised: 7 " Meanwhile a grens' deal 1, ofl time would "be l saved. It' &; remarKabile that' in:;this ' "bootmakers'- diSpnt®r-tßas Ar'ibitration Oiurt" has practically trsen acting as a JBsfed of bring the'parties;-to' an ag reeictaiii.