The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-03-24
A HITCH IN SETTLEMENT

| "A 4AA1St1 LIN SEIILEMENT.
! In spite of the hitch that has inter.
vened to prevent the expected settle.
ment Of the British coal strike by Par.
hament, 1t Is matter of general ex.
pectation that Parliament will. in fact.
make the settlement. Both the mine
operators and the miners have divided
radically on their dispute, and both
are so stubborn that neither can be
expected to yield hairs breadth
Relief at the hands of Parliament,
tneretorc, appears to be the only posi-.
nle way of settling the strike Pro.
ceedings appear TO have been running
along smoothly for Parliament to take
charge and establish a minimum wage.
when all at once the Ministry vetoed
that detail, the contention being that
1t was entirely contrary to British pre-.
cedent, and would lead the Government
into unknown fields where pitfalls and
obstacles were many. The minimum
wage proposed was five shillings day
for adults and two shillings day for
boys; but there is where the stick oc.
Cured.
The proposition to settle this great
strike by Parliamentary action brings
into distinct contrast the difference in
form OF Government between the
United States and Great Britain. If
Parliament should act. there would be
something done which could not be
done by any power in the United
States. IL is true that President Roose~
welt interposed by way of appointing
Cancellation board in the anthracite
coal strike in Pennsylvania; but it was
admitted that his interference had no
foundation in law, and could not be
construed as within the official prov
ince Of the President. However, the
effect of it was 10 bring on a COM
promsie between the laborers and the
operatives OF the Pennsylvania mines
without any Governmental compulslon.
In this country, if Congress or any
State legislature should undertake to
step in and settle strike in tho way
that it is proposed to have the British
Parliament settle the English strike,
there would be at once an appeal to
the courts for iniunctions, stays Of pro-
cedure, and all that sort of thing with
which we are so familiar. But In case
Parliament should act, there can be
nothing Of that kind in Great Britain
that enactment would end the matter, |
and no one would dream Of any re.
sistance.
The reason for this difference Is that
in this country We have fixed written |
not only for the Federal |
but for each Of the |
States. Any legislation deeply affect |
ing any interest, is sure to be brought
to test as to its validity under the
whether Federal or State.
In Great Britain, the act of Parliament
g itself the constitution, and from it
here is no appeal The courts con-
strue it as the binding law, and there
IS no possible foundation for any con-
est, The precedents and traditions of
British legislation and government !
sorm an unwritten constitution for
hat kingdom that is rs binding in
heir way as written constitution
you'd be; but there nothing resists an
lct of Parliament. There is no gauge
whereby it can be compared; it must
,e accepted as enacted, and that is the
md of the matter so far as the legis-
alton is concerned. The construction
# that legislation is, Of course, open
o the courts, just as the construction
If any legislation is open here; but a
aw Of Parliament cannot be attacked
lpon It's general validity there as it
AN be here, for the reason that there
S no organic law in Great Britain to
est any legislation against.
1t seems pity that there should
ave been interposed this obstacle III
he way Of a settlement Of that great
trike of the coal miners of England;
,ut we do not doubt that some means
will vet be found for Parliament TO
AXE jurisdiction of the matter and
make a settlement that will be fair TO
III concerned, and that none can re-
-