The Timaru Herald, SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 1908. FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13679, 22 August 1908, Page 4

The Timaru Herald, SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 1908. FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

We confess that we- had not anticipated the' refusal "of the Arbitration Court to make an award in the dispute brought by the■-Canterbury Farm Labourers' Union againsi /the-- farmers of this province.From - the ; onti=et the representatives of the employers contended nob only that there .was no; genuine grievance 'amongst the men engaged in farm, work, but also that it was utterly impossible to -frame a workable award to govern .the conditions of the .agricultural induelry. The ('oixi, however; decided that the dispute had been correctly .brought, and' instructed- the Conciliation Board to investigate the sub-ject'-and make,.,a recommendation as, to the lines oh which an award might !ve framod. Eve'ry ; farmer recollects 'the protracted duration of the Board's enquiry. It perambulated Canterbury from end to end; itr listened' to an 'enormous amouitt of evidence and yet concluded its proceedings while there were more witnesses* still demanding to be heard; itmade personal inspections of farms and sheep'■ Stations and the accommodation provided for the hand's; it sat. for a week or inorc-..while the ...representatives of the different intereste involv*Jl summarised and criticised the volumes of evidence which afc great) expense had been recorded by the Board's reporter. And after all, itdidnofi want' to make ii recommendation,, and only did so under the lash of a strong direction from -the "President of the "Arbitratioii Cpui*..'. flnieit;the iaispute '■camo •■'before--the Court itself. Here

again the represent auvo of the farmers strenuously urged his contention I liar Iho framing of fl workable award for application in ihe agricultural industry was a fdie.er impossibility. Thai contention is not admit ted by the. Court,eventhough if has, Hy a. majority vote,declined; in make an award. It is in fact negatived, at least, hy implication. "If a strong case, had been made mil. for interference," says the judgment,, " lire C'ourli might, havo felt compelled to make an award, and attempt io regulate, ihe hours of work and wages of general farm hands. Such a. case, however, was not made out, and Ihe Court is thus relieved of the necessity of making a, perilous attempt Io regulate by awardi the whole farming interest of the Dominion." • Evidently, therefore, the refusal to make an award was prompted, not. by the difficult in* in the way of making it, great as they were, lint by the, fear of the injurious effects which interference by ,lie Court might have, upon the agricultural industry of N T ew Zealand. Even that fear would have been thrown aside if the Court had been convinced that the condition of the average farm labourer needed improving. Hut. as it: had come to the conclusion that in general he lias nothing much to complain -about, it, decided that there was too much risk of a. calamity io justify interference with the existing order of things. From a. strictly logical point of view, id appeal's' to us that, Mr McCullongh io justified to a large ex-lent in the criticisms .he has made upon tin? judgment of his colleagues, and' that many of Ihe. arguments which (he judgment, uses in support of its refusal to make an award for farm labourers might with equal justice be ,ippl ; ed io other industries. We believe personally thai, castiron rules foiVithe conduct of any industry must work a good deal of injury and injustice, and we admit that it is easier to control an industry carried on. under cover than one, so dependent upon the vicissitudes of the weather as; farming is-. It is also |o be recognised that colonial industries protected by a. high tariff stand upon a different footing from that which lies to meet- 1h» competition of the world. But all these admissions being made, the difference between tlroee cases in which the Court, has readily made awards and this one in which it has exercised its discretion' in refusing to interfere, is only n difference of degree. The fanners hare been saved from an award only by the magnitude of the risk involved in the direction of their business by the State's industrial tribunal —nob by the difficulty or even ' the. impossibility of framing such a direction. What the next step will be is indicated plainly enough by Mr McCnllough in his statement dissenting from the Court's decision. There will almost) certainly be an-'appeal to Parliament, and from Parliament, to the - country.. This judgment, means the parting of the ways in lahour legislation and in politico. The tmionislß of; Xe.w Zealand will fit and by the disappointed organisation which asked the Court for an award and was given nothing. ; So much has been evident) from •the isivenunus protests made by labour '.'throughout the colony against' the (suggestion'that the farming industry should be .'•specially excluded from ihe operation of ; the•" .Arbitration Act. The Court has ; done what Parliament, was asked In do, and without, question Parliament will be asked, to make the Court discharge *towards the, farm labourer the same function as it freely exercises .with respect to the baker, {ho. carpenter, the. printer, or any ether worker except the mati on tha farm. Moro than ever, the labour qne.s- . tiii} will become the icmie at the next! general election, and candidates, will hardly ba able to dodge it. The workers will see to it that every aspirant to political honours will make his position clear, and equally tho employers will have to find men in whoni they can have confidence in the coming fight.