Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/288

 a spirit not contemplated by the Legislature, it might do great harm to both sides. It was the Court’s desire to do as little as possible to disorganise the conditions of trade in the colony. At the same time, the Court felt that it was there to protect the workmen on the one side and the employers on the other side. It should do justice to all parties and disorganise as little as possible the numerous industries that existed in the colony. Speaking from his own knowledge of the working-classes, he could say that they were not unreasonable, though he believed that they desired to get what they thought was reasonable for their own interests, and sometimes asked too much. The employers, many of whom had sprung from the working-classes, and knew their conditions, would not, he thought, meet the employés in an unreasonable spirit, if they had in their minds the one idea, that the interests of both were to be mutually conserved for the good of the community and of the particular persons engaged in the trade. That was the principle which should actuate both employers and employés.

Mr. T. Woods, a union delegate, in reply, said that it had always been the ambition of the unions to bring about good feeling between the employers and the workers. Mr. A. H. Cooper, another union delegate, thanked the employers’ delegates for their courtesy. Each side, he said, had conducted its case in a conciliatory spirit.

Mr. J. A. Frostick, President of the Boot-manufacturers’ Association, said that whatever the Court accomplished, it had assisted in bringing about that excellent feeling which had been referred to by Mr. Cooper. No matter what award was made by the Court, if the men would thoroughly co-operate with the employers in competing with the importations, the local industry would ultimately succeed.

In this way, the Court, and the Act as a whole, have earned the colony’s respect and appreciation.

One part of the scheme has not been so successful as was anticipated, but the partial breakdown of the Conciliation Boards has not led to the loss of the conciliatory principle. The Court has taken upon itself the duty of conciliating. It would rather conciliate than compel. It is not only a Court of