tolerable. When this consummation is reached, then the community, in despair, will turn to the only remedy, Socialism — and the millennium will dawn. * * [The presence of this spirit goes] a long way towards explaining, not only the continuance of strikes, but also the remarkable indifference, not to say hostility, lately displayed in certain quarters towards the principle of arbitration, which so long held a prominent place in every Labour programme. To men under the influence of these ideas, the judgment of an Arbitration Court is, after all, very much the same as the result of a local strike or lockout, it merely decides whether a certain set of workers shall or shall not be given certain advantages to which they consider themselves entitled, but which their employers refuse to allow them. Its effect is restricted, it does nothing towards advancing the Socialist cause as a whole; indeed, from some points of view it might even be conceived as retarding it, as the relief afforded by a mere palliative medicine may often divert a patient's attention from the real progress of his disease. To which must also be added, that to many of the rank and file the actual working of the courts, up to the present time, has proved a keen disappointment. Since, according to the Socialist teaching, all employers' profits are only so much unjustly taken from labour, therefore any concessions which the workers might obtain would only be getting back a part of what was really their own. Until they obtained the whole, they could never ask for too much. In other words, whenever an industrial dispute occurred, the men must practically always be right, and the masters wrong. * ** But if all such disputes were to be referred to a really impartial tribunal, such as the Arbitration Courts seemed to promise, then as a matter of course, in ninetynine cases out of a hundred, the decision would be in favour of the employes' demands. Consequently, the discovery that an unbiassed judge might actually hold that capital as well as labour, had its rights, and that these rights must be upheld, came as a rude awakening. The fact that arbitration might possibly work both ways at once deprived the principle of a good deal of its attraction. 'What's the use of our going to a Court if it won't give us what we want?' was openly asked. Hints, too, were not wanting that the judges, after all, were merely the corrupt tools of the capitalist class,' and the Courts themselves only another ingenious device of the employers to tie the workers' hands. The idea upon which so many hopes had been built had proved a failure; it would be better after all, to get back to the old ways."

With the result that many of the more powerful unions are showing a disposition to break away, and in New Zealand there has lately been formed "an organization called 'The New Zealand Federation of Labor.' It declares craft unionism to be a failure, and preaches the submergence of craft unions in one great union which can, if necessary, bring about a universal strike. The miners have joined this society, and to be ready for emergencies have withdrawn their unions from under the Arbitration Act." At a recent conference in New Zealand between the mine owners and delegates from The Federation of Labor, with a view to settling certain labor difficulties, the mine owners laid it down as an essential condition of any discussion, that any agreement arrived at must be binding under the Arbi

tration Act. The labor delegates refused to accept this condition, and the conference was thereupon abandoned.

Now, however desirable compulsory arbitration may be from a theoretical point of view, there are immense difficulties in the way of enforcing it against the workman. (You can always get at the employer.) I will give two or three examples of what has actually occurred. Some time ago there was a miners' strike in one of the coal districts. It doesn't matter what it was over, but it was in defiance of an industrial court award. Several thousand miners went out. In an endeavor to enforce the award of the Court some of the leaders were arrested and fined. Refusing to pay their fines, they were sent to jail, and in the eyes of their followers became martyrs to the cause. The great body of the strikers simply snapped their fingers at the law, and said, "There are not jails enough in Australia to hold us." Another case was that of the Perth tramways of West Australia. The employees, being dissatisfied with their conditions, applied to the Arbitration Court expecting to get their conditions improved. The award was not exactly what they wanted or had contended for, so they went out on a strike, and for two weeks not a wheel turned on the tramways in that city. The Company finally made some concession and work was resumed.

Early in this year there was a general strike in Brisbane, where I live. This city is an important seaport. The wharf laborers were working under an agreement with the ship-owners not to strike under any circumstances, but to submit any differences to arbitration, and there was a penalty of £1,000 for a violation of this agreement. The Federal Arbitration Act also provided a heavy penalty. Notwithstanding, without any notice, they went out on a sympathetic strike, having no grievances of their own and practically tied up the shipping of the port for some time.

At the same time the employees in the boot and shoe manufacturing trades in Brisbane, went out. They were working under an award of the Federal Arbitration Court with a heavy penalty in case of a strike.

Now, what are you going to do in such cases, when 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 or more men refuse to work, disregard Arbitration Court awards, refuse to pay their fines, and defy the Government to put them in jail?

Right here is a peculiar psychological fact. However much the public may be inconvenienced, public opinion as a whole will not support any attempt to force a lot of men to work against their will, however fair or attractive the conditions. Public opinion will condemn any Government that attempts to imprison such a body of men for insisting on their personal liberty; and, last, but not least, in this day of universal suffrage, no Government that is dependent for its life upon the popular vote will attempt such a thing. So long as the arbitration

courts and wages boards could be used to force wages up and shorten the hours of labor they were a good thing; but when the time comes, as it surely will in every industry, and already has in many, when these decisions are no longer solely in favor of the laborer, they are rejected and thrown aside like an empty orange skin that has been squeezed dry. That, gentlemen, is the position. How are you going to meet it? A brief explanation of the constitution and powers of our arbitration courts and wages boards may be interesting.

First, we have The Federal Arbitration Court, which was originally intended to have jurisdiction only over disputes extending beyond the bounds of one state. Attempts have been made to extend the jurisdiction of this Court over practically every industry, and just at present its limits are not well defined. It has been settled, however, that shipping, the wool shearers, and certain manufacturing industries, are within its jurisdiction. An attempt is being made to include tramways, but the tramway companies are fighting this claim, though the final result is yet uncertain. The powers of this Court, in cases where it has jurisdiction, are very extensive. A judge sitting in Melbourne can fix the minimum wages to be paid and the maximum hours to be worked, and most of the conditions of employment, throughout Australia. There is no appeal from this decision except on the question of jurisdiction. If it is settled that the Court has jurisdiction over the matter, it can make any award it chooses, from which there is no appeal. In hearing industrial disputes, the Court is not bound by any of the ordinary rules of evidence, but can accept or reject any evidence, direct, indirect, or mere hearsay, and in a recent case most extraordinary latitude was allowed one of the parties. Except by mutual consent of both parties in a case, no lawyer or paid agent can appear, and of late the tendency of the labor organizations has been to refuse consent to lawyers' appearance.

Some of the states have state arbitration courts modeled very much on the same line.

Wages boards which have been on trial for some years in Queensland, are constituted by an equal number of representatives from the employers and employees in any industry. There are seventy-one wages boards in the State of Queensland, and forty-eight of them in the Brisbane district, so if you have a business of any size you are liable to be up against a number of wages boards, and many complications follow. The representatives on these boards are selected by ballot, and every employer in an industry for which a wages board has been ordered, must furnish to the Department of Labor a list of all his employees. A list of all the employers is also made. A ballot is then taken amongst the employees under the supervision of the Department of Labor for the employees' representatives on the board. A ballot is also taken among the employers for their representatives

The representatives of the two sides then meet to choose a chairman. If they fail to agree, the Government appoints a chairman. In due course the board meets upon the call of the chairman, and proceeds to consider the claims of the employees and the counterclaims of the employers. In case of a disagreement between the members of the board, the chairman has a casting vote. In course of time (two or three months up to two years or more) an award is rendered, in which the most minute details through all branches of a complicated industry are settled; the minimum wages, the maximum hours of labor, the holidays, rates for over-time, number of apprentices, employment of children, female labor, etc. As a rule, these wages boards fix the minimum wage at about the maximum wage previously paid by reputable employers. During the last three years, the increase in wages in Queensland has varied from 6 per cent. to 60 per cent. And, as a necessary result the cost of living has been going up at a greater rate.

In the Queensland Parliament, the Government lately introduced an Industrial Peace Bill, which is the latest thing in attempts to settle labor difficulties by law. One of the principal features of this bill is that it requires a vote or plebiscite of all employees in an industry before a strike takes place, with heavy penalties against unions and individuals for violation of its provisions.

This bill is being strongly opposed by the Parliamentary Labor Party. And to indicate the party attitude upon this and industrial legislation in general, I will read a few extracts from speeches made in the discussion of the bill.

"I have been told that the Bill proposes to insist upon a ballot or plebiscite before any industrial dispute can be arranged. I should like to ask the Treasurer if it is intended to ask members of unions and wives of members to say by a plebiscite whether they wish a strike or not, will those persons also have the right to decide by ballot whether there shall be a rise in the price of foodstuffs? The two things go together. We know that if there is a rise in wages, there follows a rise in the price of provisions which is often more than twice the rise given in wages; and if members and their wives are to take a ballot before there can be a strike, it is only fair that they should be allowed to take a ballot as to what shall be the price of foodstuffs which they pay for out of their earnings."

"Just a word or two on the regulation of prices: One of the presidents of an arbitration court in Australia has already indicated that unless power is given to regulate prices, the whole system is a delusion and a snare, because immediately wages are increased, up go rents and the cost of living generally, and often before that. The secretary of the Department of Labor in New Zealand has pointed out that the cause of the increase in wages is the increased cost of living. Mr. Fred Henderson says, with regard to the labor unrest: The immediate provoking cause of the unrest has been the all-round increase in the cost of living.'"

As before stated, proposals are being made to enlarge the powers of the Federal Arbitration Court, one of the objects being to take from the States all control over industrial matters, and also to overturn all economic laws in an attempt to regulate the cost of living. Or in plain words, raise the price of labor and at the same time reduce the price of commodities produced by that labor. The views of the Labor Party are illustrated by extracts from other speeches made during the discussion above referred to:

"Those proposals attempt to get at the kernel of the trouble and to legislate not only for the effect but to ascertain the cause and to legislate for that also. As the member for Cairns pointed out the referenda proposals will deal with food prices and in addition to the ordinary arbitration courts it will have a court that will attempt to regulate the prices of all commodities, including house rents and so on. Industrial unrest generally is accentuated by the cost of living. In the cities the worker is discontented; he is in a state of perennial discontent and whether he has 2s. 6d a week rise or 10s. a week rise, that money is taken from him in some way."

"If the referenda is carried, the Federal Government will have an Arbitration Court which will deal with wages and hours, conditions of work, and which will also deal with the price of commodities. We know the other day the judge of the West Australian Arbitration Court said that no good would ever come of arbitration unless the Government, or Arbitration Court, has the power of fixing prices."

"It is the only thing to my mind that will deal with this question of industrial unrest. It will fix wages first of all by its Arbitration Court, and then it will render those wages of some use by fixing the price of commodities."

It should be borne in mind that "Labor Party" and "Trade Unionism are only other names for Socialism of the most rampant and revolutionary type. Their motto is Socialism in our Time, peaceably if we can; forcibly if we must."

This, gentlemen, is briefly the position of compulsory arbitration in Australia. As a matter of fact, it works only one way. In the estimation of the worker, it is a good thing so long as it gives him what he wants. It is of no use when it doesn't. The difficulties in the way of enforcing it against the mass of the workers is so great that when it comes to that point it breaks down and falls flat.

(Vice-President Harries in the Chair.)

VICE-PRESIDENT HARRIES:- The Chair desires now to announce the Committee on Nominations as follows: Mr. R. I. Todd, Chairman; Mr. F. W. Hild and Mr. J. K. Choate.

MR. TINGLEY:- Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Association omitted an important matter yesterday, and if I