The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1922. AN AMERICAN EXPERIMENT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18532, 14 July 1922, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1922. AN AMERICAN EXPERIMENT.

The State of Kansas is one of the great industrial and agricultural centres of America, and it is fitting that experiments with a view to improving the relations between the employer and employee should be "tried out” there. But according to files just to hand, the latest idea conceived by those so imbued is to go a step further and to embrace the public in the beneficent scheme. "Whether you are an employer or an employee,” they say axiomatically, "or just a member of the party of the third part—the public—the strike is your problem.” After the great upheaval in 1919, when the mining Industry lay paralysed for mouths, and the suffering of the people was intense, the Governor of the State (Mr. Henry J. Allen) caused to be introduced into the Legislature a measure constituting an Industrial Disputes Court that would "look out beyond the pale of selfish interest” and give justice to the public. The intention was to "impress with a public interest” the manufacture of food and clothing, the production of fuel, and, of course, transportation, and to declare labour, as well as capital invest-, ed and engaged in these essential industries, to be "impressed with a public interest and to owe a public duty.” When Mr. Allen, desiring to enlighten other parts of the world, wrote his book, "The Party of the Third Part,” the Court had been in operation only 12 months, so that the time was insufficient in which to test its real merits. But the New York correspondent of the Argus, writing as recently as April 26, made a pertinent reference to the subject, when, in dealing with the extraordinary number of srtikes that had marked thd> first four months of the year in America, he mentioned that the pub-' lie, taking a hand in the matter through the various State Legislatures, were advocating industrial relations courts as a means of settling wage disputes. The American Federation of Labour, he added, looked upon such courts as but another means to be put at the disposal of the employers to bring about the reduction of wages. As a result, it had fought the existing Kansas industrial tribunal, several of the Coalmine Union leaders of that State going to prison rather than obey the Court’s injunctions forbidding them ul call strikes. In New York State,

where a bill was introduced to create a similar Court, Mr. Samuel Gompers, the president of the federation, directed every force at his disposal against the measure, and the Governor of the State, evidently not a man of the same mind as Governor Allen, of Kansas, sealed the fate of the Bill, by declaring* that it would [ bring about an unwarranted inter-1 ference by the State in labour matters. The system in Kansas differs from the industrial courts of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, in that it is based on the principle of adjudication, and not arbitration. The Australian courts, Mr. Allen points out, have as their chief purpose the protection of arbitration agreements, whereas the Kansas court has as its chief purpose the protection of the public against industrial warfare. It provides for the impartial adjudication of the rights of labour, capital, and the public, acting through complaint or upon its ,own initiative. The Australasian systeifi, the author adds with almost uncanny perspicacity, was originated primarily by the labour unions for the encouragement of union organisation. "It has no interests In the rights of the public, and no I means of protecting these rights." | In Kansas the Slate provides for all | the costs of litigation. The act ini the form that it was passed provides! in case of a controversy between em-| ployers and employees which may I threaten the production or the trans-i portation of the necessaries of lite, j that it shall be the duty of the Court! ! of Industrial Relations, "on its own j initiative, or on the complaint of either party, or on the complaint of the Attorney-General, or on the com-| plaint of citizens,” to investigate the! controversies and make an order prescribing rules and regulations, hours of labour, working conditions, and a reasonable minimum wage, "which shall thereafter be observed in the conduct of the said industry until such time as the parties may agree.” The law does not abolish collective bargaining. It legalises it, and the Court cannot interfere in any controversy until every honourable effort to reach an understanding has failed. Then “the Court steps in and presents its programme as a substitute for the State.” While the law forbids the union oflicials to order a man to quit work, it gives the man the right to quit work if he likes, “but he shall not come around the next day with his pockets full of dynamite to prevent the man from working who wishes to continue upon the job.” “How then,” it will ! be asked, “can such a Court do more than any other to prevent strikes ” - The author of the law relies very largely upon the force of public opin-

ion to restrain men from throwing essential industries idle before the Court has had time to investigate the dispute and upon the police power of the State to compel observance of

the decision of the Court when it has made its inquiries. Time has yet to show whether this can be so. The altruism behind Mr. Allen’s plan for industrial peace few will doubt. Fewer still wil dispute the need for some such panacea. This was amply demonstrated when, in a debate. on the merits of the law between Mr. Allen and Mr. Gompers in the Carnegie Hall in New York, before au immense audience, the ideal of Mr. Allen easily prevailed. Lurking behind Mr. Gompers’s criticism was the fear that the law would displace the power of the uuion “bosses.” The last of a series of dramatically timed questions that Mr. Allen put to his adversary was:—"When a dispute between capital and labour brings

on a strike affecting the production or distribution of the necessaries of life, thus threatening the public peace and impairing the public health, has the public, the party of the third

part, any right in such a controversy, or is it a private war between capital and labour? It you answer the question in the affirmative. Mr. Gompers, how would you protect the rights of the public?” Mr. Gompers would not answer the question, and as far as is known has not done so to this day, at least not in the form that it was put to him. However, the quandary that he found himself in' did not prevent him, in

company with the agents of the federation in Kansas, from fiercely opposing the Industrial Relations Bill at all its stages ii\ the Legislature. It ultimately was passed by overwhelming majorities, only seven

votes being cast against it. in the Lower House, and four in the'Senate. But it is uot alone the union, agitators who are the critics of the) Kansas law, though the others take a higher ground for their objections. There are employers who are opposed to it. Mr. G. W. Wickersham, who was Attorney-General in the Taft Federal Administration, has given it as his opinion that the Kan-| sas law “Is a long step towards State* socialism,” basing his statement upon the theory that the assertion of police power, when carried to an extreme, would eventually bring about complete Government control over private enterprise and then State ownership.