The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1903.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 11998, 21 February 1903, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1903.

We not long ago commented upon certain, remarks which the Premier had made to Trades Union deputations in Wellington regarding the advisability of altering the law under which the President of the Arbitration Court must be a Judge of the' Supreme Court. According to the published facts the Premier was somewhat emphatic on the subject, and he certainly left the impression that his mind was pretty well made up, and that in the course of next session of Parliament legislation would be introduced for the purpose of giving the Government a free hand in such appointments, except that Judges of the Supreme Court would be excluded. We held, and still hold, that such an alteration of the law would' be very ill-advised, as it would inevitably detract from the weight which now attaches to the awards of the Arbitration Court. The Premier's idea at that time appeared to be that the dignity of the Supreme Court was in danger of being injuriously affected by the hostile comments of a section of the workers, who were dissatisfied with some of the awards. It seemed to us absurd to suppose that the remarks of certain discontented mechanics could affect the Supreme Court in the smallest degree; and on the other hand we feared that giving the Government the power cf selecting the President of the Arbitration Court anywhere aaight lead to grave aSuses. However, for some reason or other the Premier subsequently changed his mind, and announced that the constitution of the Arbitration Court would not be interfered with. That is satisfactory as far as it goes, but the Premier alsc made some remarks which pointed to a determination to render the giving of preference to Unionists compulsory in future awards of the Court. Ho said:—"He joined issue with the statement that at the- present time preference was only nominal., and should continue so. If it was only nominal that situation should be altered as soon as possible. It should be made concrete, and he would 1 Be quite prepared to ask Parliament to» put it in concrete- form in the interests of. both labourers and enaplovers. It was in? the interests of all' that preference should be given." 'Jjhe Premier couched this ideas in rather peculiar language if he actually made use of those words, Uut at all events a part of his meaning i* sufficiently clear. The word

" nominur 1 " should probably bo- replaced by the word's "in the discretion of the Court ";-.,«ad as for " concrete-" what he intended to say was that tbe giving of preference of employment, to Unionists should ife compulsory on the Court when making an award. "It was-;" according to him,. " in the interests of all that preference should be given." That is a. point on -which, ire totally disagree with him, and -we always experience regret when, in making- an award, tbe Court exercises its assumed discretion and gives- a preference to Unionists. The Act contains no express provision entrusting tife Court with that discretion, and the exorcise of it is an interference with liberty of contract, and is prejudicial to tbe interests of the community. But the Prenacr would give the Arbitration Court something moTe than a discretion in the matte?. li his promised or threatened alierafiion of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act be passed, no- non-Unionij* in any trade which has a Union will Ov. K b!e to obtain employment in that trade as long as there are any Unionists out of work and willing to take it. We denounce such a law as gross tyranny. The legislature should not fend itself' to such merßwds of increasing the strength of th-j Unions. An employer should be free to employ- whom he pleases, land the worker should' have no such limitations placed on his opportunities of earning his- bread. Adiuttt a, week ago, tlie"Lyttjlton Times,"" in an article on tinssubject, said:—"lt is the inherent r.%hb of any man to work for his living, and it would be an an: of gross tyranny to dep.-ive him of chat right except upon the condition tljat he paid dues to a Union. Already tbe Arbitration Court has: gone quite as far ;;s- is at all necessary ir« giving Unionists a preference of employment, and any attempt to make preference compul- | sory by law—which we take to be what ' Mr Sedcto;* means when he talks of' having preference c made concrete '—will ba strenuously resisted as involving a direct attack upon the workers' liberty." Our opinion, as we have already said, is that the Court has been wrong in giving preference in anv case.