The Star. FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1891. Combination and Conciliation.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7176, 29 May 1891, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1891. Combination and Conciliation.

-__-—__- I E TJndee this heading Tlie Worker, a Bris- ' j bane journal, publishes a speech of Sir ; Edward Reed, K.C.8., member for Cardiff, and in 188G Juaior Lord of the Treasury. _ Sir Edward is not a young man, but has reached the ripe age of sixty, and he is a large employer of labour, for he is a great ■ shipbuilder. Such a man, holding such a, t position, is not likely to be a unionist ; * agitator, and therefore his opinions on | , Unionism are entitled to he considered ( perfectly unbiased, at least towards tho . working classes. Let us see, however, . what Sir Edward says. He declares it to j be an essential condition to the well-being of society that the labouring classes should be organised as thoroughly and completely as possible, and cannot understand tho position of those people who view with alarm the progress of trades and labourers unionism, and feel that the future of the country is compromised by the extension of such organisation. Upon these alarmists jhe turns the tables by giving it as his opinion that the future of the country was very seriously compromised before trades unionism began, because the grasping, inhuman selfishness of men had unrestrained scope in every sphere of human labour. What would Mr Justice Harding, of Queensland, say to a unionist who ohould be brought before him on a charge of sedition for using words like these ? But Sir Edward Reed and Mr Justice Harding are two very different men. Sir Edward, while admitting and regretting many things that were done by the labouring and artisan classes when in a state of conflict with the employers, pointed out that evil things were done on both sides. He did not envy, he said, the feelings of that man, to whatever state of society he might belong, who viewed with hostility or viewed with indifference the efforts of the working classes, by combination, to improve their position. He declared his belief that the ultimate development of trade unionism would be not that work would be scamped, but that bad and scamped work would not be tolerated by the members, who would exact "from each other more genuineness, more zeal, more devotion, and more accuracy in their manual labour than ever employers were able to elicit before. Sir Edward went on to say, and his words will sink deep into the minds of working men, " Until men combined they did not know that employers — capitalists — competed with each other for every bit of business as a lot of hungry dogs would compete for a bone in tbo gutter, and by their own competitions, always evil when extreme, were disgraced to the last degree when they exerted themselves, to use a strong phrase, as it were in business, to cut eaoh other's throats, and to carry competition to lengths which were shameful and hrutalising." On the subject of freedom of contract, the question which iB at the bottom of the shearers' difficulty in Queensland, Sir Edward was not less emphatic. Here is what he said — " For employers to make it a condition of the Conciliation Board that men ahould engage themselveß not to work with whom, and how, and where they themselves in their combinations decided to be right and good, but that they were to work where, and how, and with whomsoever the employers pleased, was not fair." " They must bear in mind that trade unionists would be dispersed to the four winds of heaven if they gave np the right to refrain from working with the persons with whom they were to be employed, as well as the conditions nnder which they were to be employed." Sir Edward fully acknowledged the absolute reasonableness and necessity of the Unionists who refuse to agree to the freedom of contract principle which seems at first sight to be so plausible. He, a capitalist, and large employer of labour, sees that Unionism cannot exist in company with freedom of contract, and as he admits .that Unionism is essential to the well-being of the working classes he is consistent in denouncing that so-called freedom. Tbe pastoralists and capitalists of Australia and New Zealand profess that they have no objection to Unionism. They, however, insist on the Unionß consenting to the principle of freedom of contract. This is very much like holding out to a man the olive branch in one hand while stabbing him in the back with the other.