The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1868-01-18

The Right Hon. sir WuIAx Rails In the CHAIR.
The Right Hon; NE EAHL or LrcHsnLD.
TSs Rirhs Hen. Cir BssusD wAlxsn H.AD, Bart.
sir DANIEL GoocH Fart, MP.
HANNAH MkRrxtK, Esq.,C. B.
jams Doors, ESQ. Q. b. s sar.1as
THonAs HUsHEs, ESQ, NJ. p.
PRxpRicE HAHusoH, ksq.
Mr.. RoBERr ArrLEoARrH examined.
lcosrRuED
Do you think that If the funds were se-
parated the IN, mbers would know exactly
what proportion cs their paymenls went to
one class Of expenses, and what proportion
10 anotheri They would certainly know
that, but do not see any advantage yet
You would admi: that there may be diff
ference Of opinion on that /. ~ Certain
ly, l do.
If q man paid so much q week, and that
was in consideration Of so much for sick and
accident purposes, and II he paid so much
more than that was for trade purposes, it is
possible that there may be an advantage in
thatf IL is possible.
Ia the existing state of the law you would
see an advantage in that, would you not p
I do not know that should
Have You not complained of the existing
HsJtc Oi tuC law Nc NV FASsrCttuh VIC O~hNhs
funds when united with the trade funds p
Yes
That would be an advantage, would it not ?
We find that we want protection for ono as
much as the other.
Would il not be m advantage to have one
of them at least protected? 1t would be an
advantage truly if a man happened to dip
bis hait into the benefit purse instead Of the
trade purse, but rather think that the man
who bad the opportunity, would dip his
band into the. unprotected purse.
But there would be only one parse Instead
Of twoi Can you tell me then, if We had
only one purse, how We should draw the
line if we took the question into court, 50 as
convince magistrate that the man had got
the benefit money instead Of the trade mo-
neyf
am asking YOU the question. sunnosing
it we're possible to separate the two classes
Of funds, would il not, in the existing state
of the law, be benefit that one Of those two
classes Of funds would be protected although
the other was left in its present condition, it
would be . benefit as far as it goes, would it
mott Yes, as far as it goes, bat we want
protection for our trade funds.
VII. DOutiI- w Outu IL DUt Bt Nti UuVoUSukt
IL the benefits which you hold out 10 your
members as benefit society for superannu-
alton and relief during sickness and funeral
expenses could be held cut with certsinty 2
| take it that they are held out with certain
vf
Then will ask you first whether it would
not be an advantage that they should be held
out with certainty 2 Undoubtedly, and. /
hold that they are so.
And supposing it could be shown that you
mix up with your benefit society trade So
cety, it 10 possible that these benefits s..ould
be secured, would chat no. be . dis advan-
tsgef Il would If 4 could be shown, bnt
do not believe hat it can be shown, and !.
arr certain that it has never shown, but on
the contrary we can give . number of in
stances which would show that it mattered
not whether our societies had a balance OF q
81 900, or ElO, 900 100000, because for
practical purposes our societies would be
sound and healthy if hey had simply . work
ing balance in hand.
Bot if all the actuaries In the kingdom
were of opinion that If you 80 mixed up your
accounts the society must be economically
unsound, should you be still of the same
opinion believe that all the actuaries Of
the kingdom could never calculate what q
strike would cost
That is the reasoa, | presume, why If you
NIX up the two funds yen cannot secure to
those who are upon the benefit funds, that
4 they shall have the benefits You question
me upon the assumption that men Join the
society-some for benevolent purposes, some
for trade purposes--but the fact 70 that they
join 1t % whole, they do not join 1t, one
for superannuation, another for sick pay,
and so on.
Then you think that a mere benefit
society is OF no value il the worlds No,
do not think anything of'the kiad
Supposing II is Of value, is it not an sd-
vantage that the benefits which it holds out
TO its members should be securely Yes,
but the men feel indignant when they know
that the employers, ~ body, when they
combine could fn3 means Of Investing thesl
funds securely, while we cannot for trade
purposes have them protected, the men would
fsnds protected and the other 1sfs uupro-
teeted. 4aas ssUAssn ~ zna5s
Twas not spesking of the protection Of ths
funds; | was merely wishing to ascertain
whether It was not Of some yslue that the
benefit fund should Be kept 10 such . form
- that ths benefits 1t held out 10 it, mem
bers should be secared TO themf bslies'
that il IL kept in such form nov.
4 Sir Daniel Gooch How do you propose Il
secure the benefits 10 the man that comes o.
hooking forward to the future from sickness
or snperannuation-- security has b
that the funds viii not be I'll appIopriatel
to strikese The funds are never sIl appfo
pristsd to strikss, therefore he gsnel
20 security againsf thst xhieh nsvsrses
/ lcnrs. Ill prs,r IL. sssfsy a l.
!. Lord EIcho-You haye ju6t said, In "A
lswer to Mr.. Booth, that Il ssSmed u1f1z
that the msstxs' should hsve ths means q
ginning seaurisy for thsis fnnds, s1pposin
that thsy hare funds. snd thsl tas. -
should not What ie t5e drGerences hoy
I havs the mastsrss " Iaw my security II t6e
coabins by tksh fdnd5'which he nsn Inv
: lnot for fhsirsf ksm nst1Awzfs thnf|ihsa
! playa3 Associatiou ipy>st thsir fsnds, bat
n believe that their knowis6ee N busiusa
l would enable them to invest thelF I6Gd6 n
: cdrs!, a6d thst they I'm thsiz IL
, pnnbrt, hass oqPesthnifIss - 1o1n6it -
! lasee pnnhefao n Msn hase net. ~ ipolgneI
} i Abe enploysF3 asspeistioa afypsd - -
fhres nj - 1ecorilys the3 could intck ~
! Im1neyfn w E<dxs issgsss wot1d - No
: ihrse Bdk unkinUHeo 46nEe1,e Z
|. lik y - eeqpee - - epe uGG< 4 ~
& 4 = g = 4 - w 81 r. = Pse.e ].
oGn1 o1nt4 111M1 NfHe1tS ~
- - :. fal - - 80