Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Typo: A Monthly Newspaper and Literary Review, Volume 4

The Press on the Boycot

page 91

The Press on the Boycot

New Zealand is undergoing its first experience of an organized boycot, and many people are for the first time realizing what it means. We have never known the press so unanimous as it is in condemnation of this instrument of mischief. The Marlborough Times says that « a general strike, with an extensive campaign of boycotting, would not only prove a failure, but would practically ruin the labor cause. » The Hawera Star, fully recognizing the right of workmen to combine, and to strike if they think fit, says « We refuse to admit that any body of men are justified in refusing to any man his right to labor or to food. » The Buller Miner says that the first step towards improvement of condition must be an assertion of individual independence from the dictation of any other man: that each laborer should resolve: « I'll work when I please, where I please, at what I please, and I shall not allow for one moment any man or body of men to interfere with my rights. » « The labor party of this colony, » says the Wairarapa Daily, « is composed of two ranks, a front rank which talks much and works little, and a rear rank which works much and talks little. For the rear rank we have a profound regard and honest admiration, but of the former we are not enamored. » Both the Roman Catholic papers condemn the movement in unqualified language. The Dunedin Tablet says it is « a crime against progress, and an outrage on common sense. » The Catholic Times has been particularly outspoken, and has published a series of sound common-sense articles on the subject. It compares the Maritime Council to a dynamiter, who « aimed at his foe, and hit unoffending and innocent bystanders. »

One of the most unsatisfactory features of the present strike is the prevalent doctrine that loyalty to the union leaders is so pre-eminent a duty that all other obligations and contracts may be treated as null and void. Almost at the beginning of the movement we heard a laborer assert that « in time of civil commotion, » no contracts could be enforced. A somewhat similar representation was made to the Railway Commissioners, to induce them to become parties to a breach of the law. The result has been to make the settlement of the difficulty, either by State interference or arbitration, almost impossible. On this subject, the Taranaki Herald writes: « It would be quite easy to bring parties to a labor dispute, or the representatives of those parties, before a Court of Arbitration, but it would be quite impossible to compel them to state their case if unwilling to do so, and if either party refused to do so there could be no real arbitration, and any award would be an absurdity… The establishment of compulsory Courts of Arbitration for the settlement of labor disputes would in all probability intensify the very evils it was intended to cure, and the ultimate results might prove disastrous, as any attempt to enforce the decisions of such a Court would almost certainly lead to riot and civil disorder. A Court without power to enforce its awards would be as poor and contemptible a thing as a man-o'-war without guns. »