Janlarv, 191-V 



History of the Month. 



views. I5ut he is tin- type "I ninn one cinnot afford 

 to lose from pulilir life. Sir John Findlay. At- 

 toniey-tieneral. who resigned his seat in the Upper 

 House to contest an Assembly seat, was defeated. 

 Mr. L. M. Isitt is to be conKratulalt'd upon regain- 

 ing his si-at for t'hristcluirch N'ort'.i. 



In twent\-nine cases in New Zea- 

 The Fioal land, .second elections have had to 



Result. |,^. h^id. 'Che law hnd been altered 



in tiw last session of Parliament to 

 provide for second ballots, so as to secure the return 

 of candidates b\ majnrities. This seems a very cum- 

 lier.some merhod of finding out the people's will. 

 A very much simpler way is by the jjreferentia! 

 vote, which is now in vogue in some of the States. 

 For all concerned, it is far better to have the matter 

 ended on the election day, and the desire of the 

 people may be registered just as accurately in this 

 wav. 'I'he other is cumbersome, and an anti-climax, 

 and is likely to be somewhat stale, after the excite- 

 ment of election day is over. The fate of the Go- 

 vernment almost api)ears to be hanging in the bal- 

 ance. The returns, now complete, .show 35 Minis- 

 terialists. 37 Op|)osition, r Independent, 2 La- 

 Iiour. 6 Socialists and 3 Maoris. The latter are 

 divided as to the general support they will give 

 the Government, but from election spw(-hes it looks 

 as though .seven of them may he coimted on in case 

 of the Government being in a tight place. New Zea- 

 land's new Parliament will !:« unique in the Do- 

 minion. It is ni.iny years since parties were so 

 eriually divided, and it goes without saying that 

 the next se.ssion will be a lively one. No extraor- 

 dinary election has been held for many years. New 

 Zeal.ind has differed strangely in this respect. C'uri- 

 ousK enough the trenil in New Zealand has b)een ex- 

 .ictly ojjposite to that in Australi.i. Here in State 

 after St.iie, and in Federal ])olitics the Labnur Party 

 has gone ahead liki- .1 victorious army. In New 

 Z>Ml,uid the Conser\ative for<'es have come to the 

 fore. 



The Free Workers' Union has 



The Federal ,,,..,^^.„ f^^^ j^j^ pi^^pr a most 



(lovernment and , . ,- . 



Ircc Workers, 'lamagnig statement —damagnig to 



the Government and to the Labour 



I'll'. . statement that liears out all that has l)eef. 



said oi toe selfishness and lack of sen.se of justice 



' of the Labour Party. It will lie fresh in thi' 



ItniMTiory of all tliat a little time ago the Government 

 nnintentionallv announced its determination to give 

 [)reference to unionists on Government works, and 

 J sur-ii a |io])ular outcry was raised that the intention 

 was watered down until it Cfuild hardiv l)e recog- 

 nised. But at the time the Secretary of the Fn^e 

 Workers' Union wrote to the Prime Mini.ster, ask- 

 ing if its members c.nne within the scope of the 

 jirefefence. It took a long time to get a reply. Imt 

 at last one came, and the momentous decision is that 

 the members of the Fr<'e Workers' Union, registered 



as a trades union under the Victorian Act, are not 

 niemliers of a union that is recognised by the 

 Labour Party, and therefore are anathema. The 

 position is so ridiculous that one wonders Mr. 

 F'isher had the courage to put his name to it. Says 

 Mr. l'"i.sher: — 



.\s the rules of your Society provkle. inter alia, that 

 " 111) member ot any trade.s union or any organisation 

 fornu'il nmlor tlu- provisions of the fommomvealth 

 Conciliation and Arbitration Acts 19ri4-1910. or of 

 any similar union or organisation "' can bo admitted to 

 the S<iciety, and as the law not only specially recog- 

 nises bnt eiicounifies the torniation ot .such organisa- 

 tions, which in their turn are almost invariably com- 

 posed of members of trades unions, it is conccuvcd that 

 it would be contrary botli to public policy and to the 

 principles of the Compnlsory Conciliation and Arbi- 

 tration .-^ct to recognise your Sooiety 111 any way. 



But Mr. Fisher is, to u.se a collo- 



Mr. Fisher and i|uiallisni, " all up a tree." His 



txpediency. promises are wrong, necessarily his 



deductions are faulty. If what 

 Mr. Fisher urges as a bar to a Free Worker is cor- 

 rect, then no trade unionist should be recognised at 

 all. and preference to unionists falls to the ground. 

 Of cour.se the great thing tliat loomed before 

 Mr. I''isher's fearful gaze was the provision in the 

 Fni' Workers' Constitution that "no memlier of any 

 trades union or any organisation formed under the 

 provisi<Mis of the Commonwealth Conciliation and 

 .•\rliitration Acts " could be admitted to the Society. 

 lUit that provision was necessary, while at the same 

 time it did not shut the Society out from " recogni- 

 tion in any w ay. " One can imagine Mr. F'isher's 

 sigh ot relief to ha\e settled the whole question 

 ill tho.se terms. He liriishes it out of the w,i\. 

 and tiierefore it is ended. But there Mr. 

 Fishi-r erred. This reply has really shown up ;it 

 lurid colours the iniquity of the Government's 

 " |)reference," and the Society of F'ree Workers, 

 which doubtless anticipated Mr. F'isher's answer, 

 has done the pul)lic a benefit in exposing the fallacy 

 of the position which the Government took up. 

 "Spoils to the victors" was the principle which 

 actuated the Labour Government. " Our own mei> 

 may get work ; others lie put aside." That this is so 

 Ixx'omes evident from a very ca.sual study of Mr. 

 F'isher's reply. He ba.ses his decision upon two 

 things- expediency and legality. One can under- 

 st.ind his reiving on the former, for it is an old 

 trirk of politicians to 1 ury all .sorts of reforms under 

 the dust-heap of "public policy." For all that, 

 expeijiencv is the curse of )uiblic men. and the ruin 

 of hiriiesty. Antl Mr. Fisher has fallen a prey to 

 it. The fact is that the Fret^ Workers' L'nion stands 

 for industrial improvement without strikes and 

 \iolence. and with brotherly relations between em- 

 ployer and employee, a state of atTairs which bla- 

 tant unionism says is impossible and undesirable. 

 Of course it is not expedient, it is opposed to 

 "public policy" that a society which stands for 



