Los Angeles herald., 1910-03-12
RIGHT TO WORK
BILL IS A PUZZLE
ENGLISHMEN WONDER ABOUT
FATE IN PARLIAMENT
ON 1T RESTS THE ALLIANCE OF
RADlcALlSM AND LABOR
If Passed It Means an outlay of Near
ly $17o,0oo,ooo a Year, While
Loyd-Georgc Has Difficulty
Getting Half the Sum

representatives in the newly elected
| parliament-and, in view of the ex-
tremely delicate political situation
which the general election has left in
its train, some of the most moderate
and far-seeing members or the party
are far from regarding their course
! as either clear or simple-there can be
little doubt that the position which the
government may be disposed to take
up in reference to the "right-to- work
bill will prove the great test by which
| any working alliance between radical
| ism and labor must stand or fall.
OF the labor party's interest in the
measure there is no room for doubt.
The unemployed workmen bilp' Is for
| the moment the charter of the social
list group In parliament. BY 1t all
| members Of the party swear. Indeed
1t is something more than a charter
in the sense in which that phrase is
used in the political sphere. 1t is
something of a shibboleth. Accept
ance of the measure Is the passport,
more or less, to the favor of the party
of which in the last house of commons
| Arthur Henderson was the leader.
Even supposing the recently elected
labor members of parliament were In
| clined to palter with the question out
of regard TO the exigencies of the sit
uation which confronts all parties in
the house, their constituents through
out the country would have none of IT.
OF that matter good deal Will be
heard at the annual conference or the
labor party at Newport.
To tell the men over whom MI
Henderson presides that their bill to
provide work through pubic authori-
| ties for unemployed persons is So
cialistic In its provisions is no answer
| to their pretensions. 1t is frankly
| socialstic, and its supporters care not
| who know it, On two occasions In the
| last parliament the bill proceeded TO
a second reading and was rejected by
substantial majorities. In March. l9Oe,
| the bill was thrown out by 267 votes
to 11S; and on April of last year-the
very day after Lloyd George introduced
his budget-the rejection OF the meas
ure was carried by 22S votes TO ITO:
1t is significant that the rejection or
| the measure was moved, not by
member of the government, but by a
private radical member. In the person
] of Mr.. Madison. John Burns, who
took part in the closing stages of the
debate. had no hesitation. however. In
| condemning the bill. Urging all sorts
of objections to 1t, he summarized ms
opposition In q sentence, in which he
declared that in being invited TO give
| the bill a second reading the mouse
| of commons was being asked 10 pur-
| sue Il CIuOt "a
cialism."
A question which many politicians
are now asking themselves Is whether
| the government will be able 70 assume
so unflinchingly hostile an attitude 70
| the bill in the new parliament. Ihat
| the measure will come before the
! house of commons in some form may
no accented as certain. How, then,
will the radical cat jump? Labor men
will extort some sort of parliamentary
| consideration" for any complaisance
! thew may assume toward what IN
other circumstances would be looked
upon as government backsliding.
Maintenance Also Demanded
II is extremely interesting to OBJ
serve that for all practical purposes
the supporters OF the measure nave
not seriously counted the cost OF their
| far-reaching proposals Not all the
critics of the measure, perhaps, are
aware that the measure does not stop
at demanding work. Where the IN
| ennployment authority is unable 10
nrovide work il is to be held bound to
furnish maintenance for the applicant
and his dependents. And If the labor
! partisans are asked what form the
| maintenance is to take, and 10 what
extent IL is to be provided, they simply
say that the demand for maintenance
has been inserted in the bill simply 10
compel the authorities to furnish work.
II remains to be seen how moderate
Liberals who are always protesting
their distaste of socialism will view
any disposal on the part OF ofhclal
radicalism to truckle to an enterprise
of that kind. On the other hand,
| the Labor men in the house OF com
mons. however inclined to steer a
moderate and cautious course in the
-AnkA Of
not altogether their own masters.
Whether they like II or not, they Will
| have to accept and obey the orders
| that issue from the conference at New
| port. After the conference is over
the Labor members will themselves
take counsel together as 20 the line
of action that it may seem to them
most expedient to take in the house
of commons, but the decisions come to
at Newport must ever be before their
eyes.
The "right-to-work'' bill provides
that where an unemployed person who
has resided not less than six months in
the area has registered himself as I'M
employed it shall be the duty of the
| local unemployment authority, sub
iect to conditions imposed, and within
such q period not to exceed six weeks,
as seems advisable to the local au-
thority, having regard to the circum-
stances of each case:
(a) To provide work for him in con-
nection with one or other of the
schemes provided, or otherwise.
CD Or, failing the provision of work,
| to provide maintenance for that per
son and his dependents.
Dependents" mean such of the I'M
employed persons family as are wholly
or in part dependent upon his earnings,
and, where the unemployed person,
being the parent or grandparent of an
illegitimate child, has such child
so dependent upon his earnings, or,
being an illegitimate child, has a
parent or q grandparent so dependent
upon his earnings shall include such
an illegitimate child and parent or
grandparent, respectively.
In moving the second reading of the
bill last session, j. Ward made the
striking statement that:
Member of a family" means wife,
husband, father, mother, grandfather,
grandmother, stepfather, stepmother.
son, daughter, grandson, granddaugh-
ter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother,
sister, half brother half sister.
"There must be continuously unem-
ployed in this country at least some
! ESQ. 600 workers of one sort or another"
Here, then, according to Mr.. Ward,
| is a permanent army of three-quar-
ters Of million people to be provided
with work or with maintenance. RAM
! say Macdonald, the Labor leader, ex-
plains that the average wage of the
! British worker is 1925 year. 1t would,
| therefore, cost the country $l6S, $780, 900
yearly to meet the terms of the bill,
! and Lloyd George finds 1t difficult to
i obtain SS0,000,000 for the entire budget.