STRIKE LEADERS.

Observer, Volume XXXII, Issue 24, 24 February 1912, Page 2

STRIKE LEADERS.

An Interesting Contrast.

IT has been the custom in this country to allow Justices of

the Peace who are trades union secretaries to encourage men to strike, in defiance of the Arbitration law, and then, with amusing inconsistency, the public deplores the fact that the trades unionists failed to treat the law with respect. Is it likely that the men would respect any law that the Government allowed to be openly flouted and degraded ? However, they do these things somewhat differently in Queensland. The cable brought u» the gratifying news the other day, in coHnection with the Brisbane tramway strike, that the" name of Joseph pollings, one of the strike leaders, had been removed from the Commission of the Peace. And quite right, too. If Joseph Collings was not prepared to obey the law, he was not entitled to remain upon the list of the honorary magistracy. The firmness of the Queensland Government in thus upholding the prestige of the law is admirable.

But contrast the exemplary action of the Queensland .Government with the wretched policy of pandering to the labour boss and promoter of strikes in this country. It is no new thing to us to see a Justice of the Peace heading a strike movement and still remaining on the Commission of the Peace. It is not even a new thing with us for a Cabinet Minister to encourage a strike that is in flagrant defiance of the law. And yet the same Government that lends itself to these things publicly deplores the fact that the trades unionists do not treat the Arbitration Act with due respect. The blame, however, lies not so much with the man as with the Government that brings its own law into contempt and tacitly lends itself to disorder.

In November, 1906, there v.as a tramway strike in Auckland, in which a prominent part was taken by Mr Arthur Rosser, Justice <J the Peace and member of the Conciliation Board. Mr Rosser was actually secretary of the union that struck. But, singularly enough, Mr Rosser was not prosecuted for his complicity in the strike, though his part whs an active one, and though the Act laid it down very clearly that any person aiding or abetting or taking part in a strike was guilty of an offence. Mr Rosser even telegraphed to the Premier, whose duty it was to sternly discountenance lawlessness, and the reply of Sir Joseph Ward was that the Tramway Company would not be allowed to employ inexperienced motorman. Not a word, of course, about the law tl at was being broken. Simply an assurance that, so long as the mt>n remained out on strike, the employment of non-union labour vvuiiid not be allowed. The Government adopted a very different afctib i '-c in Queensland.

It may be argued that Sir Joseph Ward's telegram conveyed no sympathy or encouragement to the strikers. Mr Arthur Rosser, h< wever r dM not read it this way. Iris reply to the Prime Minister, published at the time, speaks for itself. iJeie is a copy of it :—" Tramway strike ended satisfactorily to mm. All points conceded by the company. Thanks for your wire of iissiiranoe." At that time, our contention was that instead of sending any telegram of assurance Sir Joseph Ward ought to have instructed the proper authorities to prosecute Mr Rosser for a breach of the strike law, and should also have promptly removed , his name from the Commission of the Peace. No such action wa» taken, and therefore it followed as a matter of course that the trades; unionists beganI*,1* , to hold in contempt an Act that they could flout with (impunity. The Queensland method of dealing with strike leaders is more satisfactory and creditable" to the administration in that State.

The instance we have narrated w, at the same time, not the only occasion on which Mr Rosser has offended in this way and yet continued to remain on the Commission. of the Peace. In May, 1908 2 there was a second tramway strike, in which Mr Rosser also took a prominent part. Dealing with the matter at the time, we said editorially : " The weakness of the Government has been most strikingly illustrated in the case of the man Arthur Rosser. Here is a paid agitator —or whatever he likes to call himself — holding His Majesty's Commission of the Peace and openly inciting men already worked up to a high Jiitch of excitement to break the aw. He tells them that by breaking the law they have covered themselves with glory. In any other country but New Zealand, Arthur Rosser would be promptly deprived of the Commission of the Peace for this act of lawlessness. In New Zealand he continues to remain a Justice of the Peace because the Government dares not uphold the honour and prestige of the law by removing him from the roll. This is one of several episodes in connection with the strike that have earned for the Government the contempt even of the working classes." -