The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1907. THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13372, 23 August 1907, Page 4

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1907. THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Til.- decision of the. Court of Appeal' given yesterday in the l'areora ease settkr?. so far a« I'll;? Now Zealand Courts an; concerned, tlie question of the liability of strikers to imprisonment. By a majority of four judges to two, tho liability of imprisonment was affirmed, but the minority consisted of Justices Williams and Dennis-ton—two names of groat legal eminence. However, the important fact is that the Government liais established the liability of the men, subject, of course, to r-e.view by the Privy Council. Tho best friends of industrial arbitration must admit that public confidence in (he system has sustained a. severe shaking. The fact of the strike, the substantial success of tho strikers in obtaining their demands, and tho impossibility of prompt, legal prevention, have done much to justify, the critics of the legislation. Ts it possible 1 to imprison a. thousand strikers, and if it is possibU', are the public likely to acquit.see tamely while respectable working men are hurried off in droves to prison '! The question is capable of one answer only, and goes far- to support, in effect the views of the minority of tho Court of Appeal from a lay point of view. how-;:ver erroneous those vifw.S nr.iy legally be. Mr Justice Williams, in the Supreme <;'omt, based his- judgment tipofi Hie

short, ami simple ground that tho irtanifest iiil.ntion nf Parliament, was to limit tin* rc»)i.ivi.lii.« againi-.!. .strikers In ordinary civil miL's and to exclude enforcement hy ini prisoumenl. After the very full, argument, in tlin Court, of Appeal lie lias not. chaug. d lits opinion, and -Mr •lus-ticc Dcuni.xl.on supports him. •Judges, limrever, aid apparently wrong in tlii'ir legal conclusions. Tlio intention of Parliament not; t.D allow imprisonment, lias not. Ihtii expressed in 111.' statute, with suflieient e.xplieitne-v:-, although that it was so intinde<l, no one. who carefully watched the- legislation at the time can doubt. It remains to lie sen how tin! Government proposes to deal with this thorny tpn.stion. l'ortilied by the decision of tho Court of Appeal. Ministers will doubtless claim that the new legislation carries tin; liability no further than it at present exists. Tim working man, if we mistake- not, is tjitiLci capable of iindcu-tand-ing that, such a. claim is on the suifaco only. He must pt'iciive that undcV the formal husk of the law there- exists tho real, though imperfectly -expressed, kcrneC of llio intention to hold a. striker imimur* from imprisonment. Thu searching legal fire -l« which the Act lias been subjected has disclosed some curious- circunir-tances. Not 'the least curious is Hi.' fact that although industrial arbitration liti.s been on the statute- book since 1894, ami although its primary intention was tu pve-venti strikes, yet striking after an award was perfectly legal until the Act of 1905 was passed. Another curious- anomaly" is that anyone who participate*; in a. strike or indeed commits u trilling breach of an award, is liable to a maximum penally of one year's imprisonment, while (In maximum penalty for oH'eiiccs which, since 1891 to the pre cm lini", have been considered v'eiy much graver, is thii.D months' imprisonni.nl. '!"> hitler consideration vcuz used by. Mr Justhe Williams, and in the Supreme- Court both wire us-Jtt for the men as indicating an absence, of int.ntion to subject strikers Lo gaol. Those arguments wlic used without avail, but such eonsidei iiniim.s, however irrelevant legally. are cogent when the whole (juostion. again comes into tli j political arena.