New-York tribune., 1906-11-13
TRADE DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.


The Trades Disputes bill has been sent
through the British House of Commons with
only perfunctory opposition, there being no di
vision on Its third reading, and 1t is assumed.
though perhaps without sufficient authority,
that it will not be materially amended In the
House of Lords If this assumption shall prove
TO be correct, a new epoch will be marked In
British parliamentary history, for surely never
before has so important piece of legislation,
and one so repugnant to a considerable part of
the nation, been enacted without more serious
controversy.
The bill contains four major provisions. The
first is that concerted act shall make the
doers of it liable for conspiracy unless the same
act done by a single person would make him
liable for tort. AS In such cases the persons
woul1 be individually liable there would seem
to be little use in making them also collectively
LIABLE unless simply to exacerbate the case
against them.
The second provision is that picketing and
perslading men to strife or to refuse to enter
employment shall be legal, provided 1t is done
| "peaCeably and in q reasonable manner" For
the last thirty years striking has been legal
lied and this new provision is meant to legal
| ize the only means by which strikes can be
made effective. The difficulty will be to draw
! the line between peaceable suasion and intimi-
| daton.
The third provision Is that 1t shall not be
| aCtionabe to induce q man to break contract
10 Interfere with the trade, business or employ
| ment of any man, or to interfere with the right
Of any man to dispose of his capital or his
| labor as he wills" Apart from its apparent
| deprivation of protection of mans rights, this
/ provision in effect makes the extraordinary dec
! laration that it shall not be an offence to incite
! a man TO commit an offence. The law already
/ provides for the eXactiOn of indemnties for
| breaches of contract. To make the man who
/ incites TO wrOngdOing immune while the victim
! of his indictments is punished, will seem to
| many strange practice. The purpose of the
| proposal is, however obvious If individuals
| who incite TO breaches of contract are made
| immune, then, under the first provision of the
| BILL the labor unions will be immune and can
| incite or direct their members to break con-
| tracts with inlpunity.
| The fourth provision however, is the chief
| one. 1t is to the effect that no action for
| damages for tort committed by or on behalf
| of the trade unions shall be entertained
though the liability of the trustees of the unions
| to be sued In certain cases remains. This LA
| biity Of the trustees IS understood to be moth
| Ing more than liability to be sued BY the unions
| themselves in case of embezzlement or other
| malfeasance. The provision means, Of course
| the annulment of the Taft Vale decision and
| its effect would be TO give the labor unions an
exemption enjoyed by no other corporation or
individual in the kingdOm-save the sovereign
! himself.
| Seeing how strongly many British capital
| lists, economists and political leaders, not to
| mention large part Of the people, are opposed
| TO such special privileges for the unions It
| seems scarcely possible that this bill will be
| approved by the House of Lords without rad-
! cal amendment especially in respect of this
! fourth clause. Yet that fourth clause is the
cru1 Of the whole matter. and the authors and
! supporters Of the bill would rather SEE all the
| rest sacrificed than it We shall not be sur
prised, therefore, If, despite present predictions
| the House of Lords deals with this measure as
| severely as 1t IS doing with the Education bill
| and holds that so revolutionary a proposal as
| the investment Of labor unions or any CORPORA
| tions with such special privileges and immuni-
ties should be made an issue for popular de-
Cision at a general election before it is en-
| acted into law.