The Argus/1886/The wharf labourers' strike

THE WHARF LABOURERS' STRIKE.

Sir,—I am more than surprised that Mr. Bruce Smith should not have thought it inexpedient in the present critical state of affairs between the Shipowners' Association and the Wharf Labourers' Union to havenow reopened up the whole question, and thus unwisely interposing his views of the matter at issue between the contending parties in the face of a tribunal which has been appointed to impartially pronounce upon the merits of the case. His sarcasm concerning that "serene and unimpulsive body, the Trades-hall Council," may not disturb its equanimity, but its secretary is not to be so easily taken in flank as Mr Smith seems to imagine and if he has the heart to renew the contest tomorrow he will find me en barbette. The Trades-hall Council, and indeed the whole of the associated trades, have this advantage or disadvantage—whichever way Mr. Smith may view it—of letting the light of full publicity into their debates by the admission of the representatives of the press, and thereby affording their critics an opportunity which, if I am rightly informed, is only a secondhand transaction on the part of the Employers' Union.

The morning papers following a debate at the Trades-hall Council tells which way the wind blows around the corner of Victoria and Lygon streets, but from the 1st October, 1885, till the advent of the year of grace 1886, the sanctity of the chamber over which Mr. Smith presides in Collins street west does not appeal to have been disturbed by the intrusion of a reporter. What was said by members of the working classes advocating their right to a little more of the worlds advantages than they already possessed, is placed in all the permanency of print, together with the slips of the tongue (which is not uncommon, even to trained orators), the indifferent diction and the execrable spelling &c. a specimen of which, in the character of a threatening letter Mr Smith received recently. But Sir,would it not be an advantage to know what reflections, opinions remarks and polite epithets, were indulged in between the terms already specified. I will not follow Mr. Bruce Smith through his valuable insight into the organisation of trades and employers unions, nor am I at all inclined to discuss the value of his paper on the subject together with his position in connexion with this latter body of which he says he is "unfortunate enough to be chairman." He will not be the first to learn that peace of mind and prosperity do not always go hand in hand with notoriety. Neither do I propose to defend other members of trade organisations, whose instincts led them into using expressions of animosity or antagonism to that gentleman. My object is to advise the public to be careful of Mr. Bruce Smith's statements of the relative value of labour from his point of view, which should not in all fairness be published while the issue is sub judice. It will perhaps be in the province of the board of conciliation to pronounce upon the question from a statistical and proportional point of view, after some thing of the following manner, viz. if the heavy cargo from the old country, quoted at 7s. 6d. per ton by steamer, and carried 16,000 miles, is brought here by seamen at wages varying from £2 15s. to £3 5s. per month what is the difference between that and the price of cargo between here and Sydney, a distance of 500 miles at 5s. per ton and seamen's wages? In the latter case £7 per month. Add to the former the cost of coal at Port Said and other stations, ranging from £2 5s. to £ 3 per ton, while the refuse and sweepings of the pits with which steam is got up on some of our intercolonial steamers is almost worthless from a financial point of view.

With respect to what Mr. Bruce Smith said concerning myself, it is, to say the least of it, untimely, if not unfair. The remarkable conversation to which he alludes as having taken place in his office and my public and private utterances up to that time, it placed in their proper light, would show that no person attempted more to avert the threatened catastrophe than I did, and on the other hand I now feel constrained to say that no one did more to precipitate it than Mr. Bruce Smith. At two large meetings of the labourers. I had already discouraged the resort to a strike, and obtained from them a resolution to accept 1s. 1½d. per hour pending a board of conciliation or arbitration deciding upon the mutter. This Mr. Smith rejected on behalf of the shipowners on last Christmas eve and finally informed the secretary of the wharf labourers and myself that if the men acted on their avowed determination to strike that he (Mr Smith) would fight with all the vigour of which he was capable. What else took place in that office I informed the Trades-hall Council at a subsequent meeting, and when that body decided to support the union it was no longer the time for bantering choice expressions nor indulging in the flowers of rhetoric and if I denounced the action of the shipowners as a direct attack upon labour, I was only obeying the impulse of a proverb concerning "coming events &c." by urging my council to be prepared for what, according to Mr.Bruce Smith's expression seemed to be inevitable. It is true Mr Smith urged me to give him my opinion based upon the evidence of his wages books, of the fairness of the wharf labourers demands, but it is not true that I was at all convinced by his arguments. What I stated was that I should further inquire into the matter from the other side while admitting that a better distribution of the labour would tend to advance the general interest of the union. What I said then I repeated since,both to the Trades-hall Council and the Labourers and I am prepared at any time to re-affirm it. I regret that Mr. Smith has opened this matter again at the present time, and I only follow him to negative as far as possible the effect his remarks would have on the public mind before the board appointed would have time to investigate the matters in dispute and not with any desire to enter into a paper warfare with a gentleman possessed of so many educational and other advantages. And in conclusion I only hope that he will refrain from pursuing a course which can have no good effect on the final settlement, and may embitter the already too excited imaginations of these who only feel and do not reason so elaborately on the position of a shipowner's wife and children and those of a labourer.—Yours &c., WILLIAM E. MURPHY,