RAILWAY STRIKE

Waikato Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1558, 16 May 1903, Page 2

RAILWAY STRIKE

CABLEGRAMS.

[per united pfess association] [by electric telegraph—copyright

MADAME MEDEA’S FATHER ASSISTS. IMPROVED TRAIN SERVICE. AN UNFOUNDED REPORT. Melbourne, May 14. Amongst those who came to the assistance of the Government is Mr David Mitchell, Madame Melba’s father. He is an old driver, and has been running a train for a couple of days. Twenty-three suburban trains were running to-day. two additional, to St. Kilda and Preston, being re-opened. Yesterday’s country service was maintained, and a number of cross-country trains ran. Goods trains ran between Melbourne, Woodend, and Bendigo. The Woodend was the first goods train attempted since the strike. Three striking drivers were in charge of engiues to-day. It is reported that the defection of the Geelong men proved to be incorrect, Forty-eight men attended a meeting, and after a lengthy discussion decided to remain on strike. ENGLISH PRESS COMMENTS. London, May 14. The Times says the railway strike in Victoria is a peculiarly audacious development of trades unionism. Mr Irvine’s emergency measure is justified by the consideration that the colony is practically in a state of siege. Unless permanent legislation is passed the Government will be again unprotected when there is a strike. All economical management of State departments is made impossible by the collective political action of public servants, who have become to a great extent the public’s masters. Unless the trades unions are made to feel their responsibilities it/ is extremely likely they may push tyranny to the point of rendering exceptional repressive measures inevitable. The Morning Post declares that Mr Irvine’s promptness and plucky determination is an example to other statesmen. It is the most courageous and wisest way to deal with the strike. The Daily Chronicle says that Mr Irvine’s proposals are unnecessarily drastic, and savour of panic. THE STRIKE BILL. Melbourne, May 14. During the early part of the debate Mr Bromley, leader of the Labour party, said no one could deprecate a strike more than he. For years he had fought against strikes. Had he and his confreres been consulted probably there would have been no strike. The strikers had been jumped on time after time. Wore they to have no right of speech, no liberty of thought? The Premier was not almighty. The views of the men ought to have some consideration. On the resumption of the debate this afternoon Sir A. Peacock announced that he never intended his amendment as an expression of want of confidence. Had it been carried he was convinced the strike would have collapsed to-day. He would support the second reading of the Bill, hut would oppose a number of clauses iu committee which were too drastic. Mr Smith, a labour member, charged the Government with unfair treatment of the railway men in regard to retrenchment and reclassification, and characterised the Bill as panic legislation. He asked the Government to adopt other means of dealing with the matter. Mr Wickford congratulated the Labour members on not attempting to justify the strike. Mr Duffy said the Bill would place every man at the mercy of any policeman who thought he was discussing a strike. Anyone with a matchbox bearing the word ‘ Strike ’ was liable to arrest and imprisonment. He was willing to give the Government full power to stop a strike, but not such powers as were asked for. Mr Fink thought it was time the demands of the Labour party should be stopped. He hoped "at the next election members would bo returned pledged to assist in the development of the colony. The strike leaders say it will take a fortnight to get the Strike Bill through. The more drastic clauses will be strongly opposed. In the Assembly the debate is proceeding, and is likely to prove verv lengthy. The feeling in both House’s and outside is that some of the clauses, especially those referring to street gatherings and publishing and distributing strike matter and strike moneys are very severe and need toning down. Mr Toutcher, a Labour member, said that the Government’s action in calling on the executives to resign before the meeting of Parliament was prejudiced and prejudged the case. The majority of the Government’s supporters had their hands manacled. The Bill, he continued, was worthy of Russia. In every way be regretted belonging to a Parliament which dared to introduce such an infamous and scandalous bill. The men believed they were striking a blow for liberty. They may have made a mistake, but ‘ to err is human, to forgive divine.’ Mr Kirton declared that this revolt was a rebellion of the O’Malleys. Mr Dawson and the gentleman who had just arrived from New Zealand were responsible for having encouraged the men. Mr Hirsch, while condemning the men s action, advocated leniency. He was glad to hear the Premier was prepared to accept modifications. Mr Treuwith opposed the Bill as unnecessary and unjustifiable. The Government had no right to interfere with the men outside of their work He denied that the Trades Hall was a political body. The Government had acted monstrously in risking such a danger over the trifie at stake. The men had acted unwisely, and in his view they should not have struck on any provocation he could think of, but they would have been perfectly justified in striking if the Government alone had been injured. He hoped that Parliament would adopt a medium course and end the present awful state of things. The debate eventually took a farcical turn, and up to breakfast time the House seemed to have forgotten about the crisis, doing its best to get the most amusement possible out of the debate.