Senate
28 October 1904

2nd Parliament · 1st Session



The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 6257

RUSSIAN ATTACK ON BRITISH FISHING FLEET

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade

– By leave of the Senate, sir, I desire to move a motion without notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– Will the honorable and learned senator indicate what it is?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Every citizen of the British Empire has lately been moved-

Senator Higgs:

– No speech yet.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable and learned senator will read the terms of the motion I shall put the question that he have leave to proceed.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The motion which I ask leave to move is as follows : -

  1. That this Senate feels bound, in the present grave crisis, to express its profound indignation at the cruel and wanton attack recently made by a Russian Fleet upon British fishermen whilst they were engaged in their peaceful calling.
  2. That this Senate sympathizes with the British Government and people in their demands, and that those who directed this outrage be punished.
  3. At the same time, this Senate most earnestly hopes that the peace existing between the British Empire and the Empire of Russia will be preserved by a f rank and honorable observance on the part of Russia of her obligations.
The PRESIDENT:

– The question is that the Attorney-General have leave to move the motion.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is granted.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

-The motion which I now move speaks for itself. The cheers of honorable senators when I read it express their profound sympathy - a sympathy which represents in this Chamber a feeling that exists throughout every portion of the Empire to which we belong. Every citizen in every corner of that vast Empire has been moved by the incident to which the motion relates. No one can feel more than I do that this is not an occasion when language of an inflammatory character should be used. But it does behove us, on grounds of common humanity, and the brotherhood of Empire, when our fellowcitizens, pursuing their peaceful calling, are interrupted in this appalling way, to express at the earliest moment - and the appropriate moment is now when things are assuming a critical aspect - our sympathy, and give our strongest moral support to the only attitude which could be adopted by the Government of Great Britain. I shall say no more. The motion commends itself, and I askthat it be carried unanimously.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

-In seconding the motion, I may say that I am confident that there is not a member of the Senate who would not feel the utmost sympathy, if not indignation, had this incident happened to the citizens of any country other than Great Britain, and when it is our own fellow -subjects who are involved, our sympathy may justly be accompanied with indignation. But I hope, with the Attorney-General, that neither the public of the United Kingdom nor the public of any other part of the British Empire, will be inflamed by the expression of exaggerated reports and jingoistic sentiments. I hope that those who have the control of business such as this on behalf of the British Empire, will be guided by the best motives, and carry out the negotiations in such a conciliatory spirit that Russia will very soon give the utmost satisfaction for any mistake, intentional or otherwise, that has been made. I have very much pleasure in seconding the motion;

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

British Fishing Fleet.

I take to the motion is that it assumesthe attack to have been a deliberate one. I think that that is altogether inconceivable. It appears to me to be outside the range of possibility that the Russian ships could have acted’ so stupidly as to attack an unoffending fleet of trawling ships.

Senator Pearce:

– There is no indication of anything else. -

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The fact remains that theydid make the attack.

Senator STEWART:

– I think that it would be more in accordance with the feelings which ought to animate the dealings which one nation has with another that we should wait for definite information as to how this unfortunate occurrence took place before condemning Russia, for that is what we do when we assume, as this motion assumes, that the attack was made deliberately. I submit that we have no evidence to that effect. We ought to await developments. We ought to wait and see if it cannot be shown that this unfortunate affair was altogether the result of an accident.

Senator McGregor:

– But it was culpable - it was the result of carelessness.

Senator STEWART:

– I admit that it was culpable.

Senator McGregor:

– That is all we assume.

Senator STEWART:

– But in his motion the Attorney -General refers to “ the wanton and cruel attack,” and I submit that we have no evidence in support of that charge. We all know perfectly well that there is a certain section of the British press, which desires nothing more than to inflame the public mind against the Russians.

Senator Millen:

– What about the continental press?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the headless trunk of Smith calls out for something like sympathy?

Senator STEWART:

– The headless trunk Of whom?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The headless trunk of Smith, captain of one of the fishing boats.

Senator STEWART:

– How many accidents happen on sea and land for which no one can be held responsible?

Senator Lt Col Gould:

.- This is a unique accident.

Senator STEWART:

– I think it would be much more in accord with proper international feeling if we assumed, in the first instance, that this occurrence off the English coast was purely an accident. What do we ‘ do? Byjumping to the conclusion that the Russian Fleet deliberately did this thing, we are provoking antagonism in Russia. What is the good of expressing in one part, of this motion a pious hope that there will be no war between Russia and Great Britain when in the first part we accuse Russia of having deliberately broken the good feeling existing between the two nations?

Senator McGregor:

– But we do not accuse Russia.

Senator Pearce:

– We only accuse the Russian Fleet.

Senator STEWART:

– We ought to remember how public opinion was inflamed by the press during the South African war, how a mercenary and unscrupulous press by disseminating lies, by polluting and poisoning the sources of information, actually incited the people of Great Britain, and I am sorry to say, of the Colonies also, to such a pitch that we were prepared to go forth and slay anybody. We have, I believe, though in. a lesser form, something of a similar character taking place now. We should be consulting our dignity far more, and acting a much more humane part - a part more likely to produce peace - by waitin to see whether this act was deliberate, or whether it was altogether the result of accident or panic.

Senator Pearce:

– Did we not condemn the Jameson raid as soon as we heard of it ?

Senator STEWART:

– I do not think that the Jameson raidhas anything to do with this question. I am astonished to find a usually fair-minded man like the honorable senator jumping immediately to the conclusion that Russia’ is the offending party in this matter.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The honorable senator does not suppose that the fishermen are?

Senator Millen:

– Who is the offending party ?

Senator STEWART:

– May I be permitted, sir, to proceed, as I think I have the floor?

The PRESIDENT:

– Certainly;

Senator STEWART:

– I was just going to submit to the Attorney-General that grand old precept of English law, that every man is supposed to be innocent until he has been, proved guilty. I think that it might very well be applied internationally, as well as locally. Would it not be much better to presume that this occurrence was the result of an accident, than, without evidence, to assume that it was deliberate? I am astonished at the honorable and learned senator, who has been accustomed to prove everything up to the hilt, or to see that the other fellow did-

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– A nice kind of accident, when quick-firers throw shells at the boats of innocent fishermen !

Senator STEWART:

– But the Russian ships did not know that they were innocent fishermen.

Senator Millen:

– How does the honorable senator know that?

Senator STEWART:

– I think it would be much better to presume-

Senator Walker:

– The Russian ships ran away ; they did not remain to pick up the poor fellows.

Senator STEWART:

– I think that the whole thing was the result of an accident. Would it not be much better to wait than to fly to this conclusion without ewdence, or at least with no other evidence than the inflammatory comments of a jingoistic press, that the act was deliberate? I need not say any more on the subject. I regret very much that I cannot support the motion. If I were satisfied that the Russian Fleet deliberately fired upon these trawlers, no man in this Chamber, or, I believe in Australia, would be more ready than I would be to support a demand for reparation and an apology from Russia. But I shall never be a party to condemn any one unheard.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Does the honorable senator think that the guns went off by accident?

Senator STEWART:

– No ; I do not say that they went off by accident.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator think that thev went off at all ?

Senator STEWART:

– I do not know anything about it.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– It is admitted in the foreign as well as the English press.

Senator STEWART:

– We all know how m’any lies appear in the newspapers. Would any Court accept a statement in a newspaper as evidence? In the interests of international friendship, we ought to suspend judgment. We ought to presume that the whole thing, if it occurred at all, was an accident until we find that something different was the case. When that occurs it will be quite time enough to demand reparation and apology from Russia, and to express our indignation at the “ wanton and cruel “ outrage - of which we have no evi-. 10 h 2 dence at present- committed by the Russian Fleet. I regret that I cannot support the motion.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– The only complaint which I have to make, in regard to this motion, is that it was not introduced on Wednesday afternoon instead of on Friday morning. I have felt all the week that it would be becoming of the Parliament of the Commonwealth to speak out in this matter.

Senator Stewart:

– Without evidence?

Senator PULSFORD:

– The evidence is unfortunately only too strong, and too plentiful. The terms of the motion, it appears to me, do not condemn the great Russian nation. They do not charge the Russian nation with having deliberately participated in, or ordered this outrage. We are endeavouring to strengthen the hands of the British Government in asking for justice, and in keeping peace; and I have a very strong conviction indeed that, in passing this motion to-day, we shall do something towards the preservation of peace.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I must say that I was very pleased that the Attorney-General refrained from using inflammatory language on an occasion like this. I do not think there is cause for hysteria on the part of any member of the Australian Parliament, or any Australian, or any Britisher. But I am sorry that the Attorney-General has not framed his motion on the lines of the motion proposed by the Premier of New Zealand, Mr. Richard Seddon, in the New Zealand Parliament the other day. I think that such a resolution would meet the case. I agree with much that Senator Stewart has said, and think that we ought to wait until we hear the other side before we condemn the Russian people.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– We do not condemn the Russian people.

Senator HIGGS:

– We are practically condemning the Russian people when we say that this was a “cruel and wanton attack.”

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Gould. - By the Russian Fleet.

Senator HIGGS:

– “A cruel and wanton attack “ is an attack made with a deliberate intention, and a wilful knowledge that a “ cruel and wanton “ blow is being inflicted on innocent people. I ask any honorable senator who is in his right senses, whether he believes that the officers in command of the Russian Fleet were likely te inflict a cruel and wanton blow on innocent people, such as fishermen engaged in trawling ?

Senator Millen:

– The facts give the answer.

Senator HIGGS:

– Have they done so? That is the question. If the Russians had done such a thing, I should say that the Russian fleet should be blown out of the water* But I ask honorable senators who know of the villainous misrepresentations which occurred’ during the Boer war - made by interested parties - to refrain before they condemn the Russians without hearing the other side. Is it not possible that the Japanese, being very active, having shown a great deal of “ slimness’ ‘ ‘ in this war with Russia, and having a good many sympathizers - had vessels on the track of the Russian Baltic Fleet?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Is there any resemblance between fishing smacks and torpedo boats ?

Senator HIGGS:

– If there were a couple of Japanese destroyers tracking the Baltic Fleet at the time when the trawlers were coming along all in line a mistake might have been made. It must be remembered that the incident apparently occurred at night-time. Is it not possible for an officer to have made a mistake in ordering that his guns should be fired?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The searchlights revealed what the vessels were. (The Russians could see the fishermen on deck. They were gutting their fish. Photographs were taken of them after they were killed, with their knives still in their hands.

Senator Findley:

– Does the honorable and learned senator think that the Russians did it wilfully ?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– No, no.

Senator HIGGS:

– The Attorney-General says that he does not believe that they did it deliberately.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I said wil* fully.

Senator HIGGS:

– What is a deliberate act but a wilful act ? The term “a deliberate act,” conveys that a person has given some thought to his proposed action. A wilful act may be committed in a passion - on the spur of the moment. I ask honorable senators whether they think it would have been right to condemn the Australian people when our unhappy late Administrator in New Guinea inflicted an outrage upon the natives of that country ? We saw in the press that the na tives were shot down in a very cruel manner, and it turned out afterwards that our officers, through panic, or some other cause, had ordered these people to be fired upon, when they were practically unarmed. Manywere shot in their canoes, although they were in the act of flight. Would it have been fair to condemn the Australian people on account of that act ? I say, unhesitatingly, that no one would condemn the Australian people unless he was a very thoughtless person.

Senator McGregor:

– We are not condemning the Russian people.

Senator HIGGS:

– But the motion says -

That this Senate feels bound in the present grave crisis, to express its profound indignation at the cruel and wanton attack recently made by a Russian Fleet upon British fishermen whilst they were engaged in their peaceful calling.

Senator McGregor:

– The Russian Fleet.

Senator HIGGS:

– I think we can express our views in another way. Does any honorable senator believe, for a moment, that the great Russian people would adopt that method of bringing about a breach of the peace with Great Britain? Would they, in order to provoke a war, fire upon fishermen engaged in their ordinary peaceful occupations? And, sir, if this was a “cruel and wanton attack,” it would show that the Russians had selected that means of coming into collision with the British nation. I do not believe it for a moment. I believe that the true sentiments of the Russian people are shown by the promise to make reparation if the statements in the press are proved. I believe that the majority of the Russian people - who are not led away by the gross and unfair attacks of a press which is supposed to be neutral, into hostile feeling against England - will be only too ready to make whatever reparation they can.

Senator Millen:

– They have been pretty slow about it.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Do the Russian people know the facts?

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Dawson asks whether the Russian people know the facts. In all probability they do not. The same objectionable class of people who are now filling the columns of the daily press here with biased reports in favour of Japan, are, I believe, keeping the great Russian nation from the real facts, and when the Russian nation hear the real facts they will hasten to remedy the matter so far as the payment of money can remedy it.

Senator Millen:

– He accuses every one who is in favour of his own country of being biased.

Senator HIGGS:

– That observation is beneath contempt. I say that I condemn the villainous misrepresentation of Russia that is appearing in the columns of the daily press.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– How does the honorable senator know that it is misrepresentation ?

Senator HIGGS:

– Because every week we see contradictions. I say that the reports appearing in the press here are deliberately biased against the Russians, and in favour of the Japanese.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator think that that has anything to do with this motion?

Senator HIGGS:

– Yes ; I say that it is part of a whole scheme - a capitalistic scheme to bring the Russian people into contempt. The terms of the first part of this motion, which affect the great Russian nation, are to my mind the result of a feeling which has been worked up by these villainous statements appearing in the press. The most objectionable part of it all, to me, is this: that the people who are working up this feeling against Russia - those irresponsible persons who, in their little offices, write these biased cablegrams - if a war took place between Russia and England, would be the first to clear out and to show their backs to the foe.

Senator Millen:

– The war correspondents have not shown that.

Senator HIGGS:

– The war correspondents have told us repeatedly that they are not permitted to get information.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must ask the honorable senator to confine Himself to the motion, which has nothing to do with the war between Russia and Japan.

Senator HIGGS:

– I am very anxious that this Senate, which is the highest parliamentary body in Australia, shall not do anything which we may have reason in later years to regret. The tension between the English people and the Russians is becoming so great that war might break out at any time. We do not know what the results would be. The other great nations of the earth might find it necessary to take sides either with England or Russia, and

Senator Stewart:

– Temperate language.

Senator HIGGS:

– If we adopted temperate language we might do some good. Let me say here that I have the utmost sympathy with the unfortunates who have been injured by this mistake, or blunder, or cruelty, if honorable senators like to so regard it, on the part of the officer who gave the order to fire ; and I am prepared to add my mite to any fund that may be subscribed to add to the money which, I venture to say, will be paid by the Russian Government to aid the sufferers. Of course, complete reparation cannot be made to the innocent people who have suffered. But I am willing to show my sympathy with them. I am willing to give whatever I can afford to any fund which may be got up on their behalf. Therefore, let not my action here, and let not the action of Senator Stewart, be misinterpreted to mean that we have no sympathy with the sufferers.

SenatorFraser. - This is very strange language.

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Fraser seems to be always on the side of anything savoring of the nature of a fight.

Senator Fraser:

– I am on the side of the flag.

Senator HIGGS:

– If, instead of belonging to the high order with which the honorable senator is identified, he belonged to another order, I could understand the honorable senator’s action. The honorable senator is always looking for a fight. I do not say for a moment that he would not be prepared to take his share of the fighting should any war take place.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator think that,, in the discussion of a motion of this sort, it is advisable that such remarks should be made.

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Fraser drew me off the track. I am afraid that the language used by the Attorney-General in the motion submitted is the outcome of the biased accounts in the press, making it appear that the Russian nation is cowardly, cruel, and tyrannical. I, therefore, ask honorable senators not to be carried away by the reports which have appeared in the ‘ press. The Boer war, which cost £200,000,000 and many thousands of lives of the best of England’s stock, and some 6262 Russian Attack on [SENATE.] British Fishing Fleet. of the best of Australia’s, was caused without a doubt by the lying statements which appeared in the press of the old country. I think that our purpose will be served if we carry a motion on the lines of that which was moved by the Right Honorable Richard Seddon in the New Zealand House of Representatives. I therefore move as an amendment -

That all the words after the word “ Senate “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ expresses its deep sorrow at the sad occurrence by which British fishermen, following their usual occupation, have lost their lives by being fired on by the Baltic Fleet, and tenders its heartfelt sympathy with the bereaved relations and all concerned, and feels assured that none will regret more this untoward event than the Czar and the Russian nation.”

When I read that motion, I felt that Mr. Richard Seddon was the only statesman in Australasia.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– When was that motion submitted?

Senator HIGGS:

– On the 25th inst.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– That was before we received the fuller information which we have now.

Senator HIGGS:

Mr. Seddon’s motion says that none will regret thisevent more than the Czar, and the Russian nation.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– They have had three days in which to say so.

Senator HIGGS:

– I submit that from all we know of the Russian Czar, we must be agreed that he will regret this event.

Senator Fraser:

– Let him show it in a proper way.

Senator HIGGS:

– The Russian Czar, let it be remembered, was the monarch who, in 1899, sought to establish the Hague Tribunal for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– And he was also the chief opponent of the proposals made.

Senator HIGGS:

– That statement is incorrect. There were at least two nations whose representatives refused to sign the agreement, and I regret to say that Great Britain was one of them. How does Senator Smith come to the conclusion that the Czar was the chief opponent of the proposal ? Great Britain certainly stood out against it, and, I think, that the United States also stood out, to a limited extent. Any one who reads of the Russian nation, must admit that it is a great nation, and that it is a nation that has as much sympathy and justice in its compo sition as has any other. Let honorable senators remember that, as Edmund Burke said, we can impeach individuals in a nation; but it is impossible to impeach a nation.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– What he said was that we could not frame an indictment against a nation.

Senator HIGGS:

– This is practically an indictment. I believe that the amendment I have moved will meet the wishes of the majority of the members of the Senate. We have not only a duty to perform, but an example to set to Australia. There is a great deal too much evidence of a disposition on the part of certain very bellicose people, who probably would not be so full of fight if a war broke out, to bring about international bitterness between nations when they should rather do their best to bring about entirely different conditions, such as were suggested by the Hague International Peace Conference. While we have a right to express our sympathy, and to do it in a practical form, with the bereaved and the suffering in this affair, I say thatwe should refrain from doing anything which will encourage international bitterness. I have every hope that this Australian nation, which I venture to think is, as a whole, far in advance of any other great body of people of similar numbers on the face of the earth, will, before many years are past, take a part in helping those who are earnest in their efforts to establish an International Court of Arbitration for the settlement of international disputes. The achievement of that end will be delayed by every step we take which is calculated to give any nation the opinion that we are not just, and that we are only too anxious to give a verdict before we hear both sides.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– In seconding the amendment which has been moved by Senator Higgs, I desire to say that it is extremely regrettable that some action was not taken by the AttorneyGeneral before submitting his motion to ascertain the general feeling of honorable senators, and to consult them as to the terms of the motion, in order that, when submitted, it might be one which would not raise a single discordant note, and which would be agreed to unanimously. If the honorable and learned senator, in acting for the Government, had chosen to do that, it would have been exceedingly becoming, and very much better than the course which he has adopted. The amendment which has been moved by Senator Higgs is an exact copy of the motion submitted in the New Zealand House of Representatives by Mr. Richard Seddon, and there is not a single honorable senator, or a single man in Australia who will say that there is a more patriotic citizen in any part of the British Empire than that right honorable gentleman. I think we might very well follow his lead in this matter. It would be more in keeping with the dignity of the Senate if we were to record our views on the subject in the simplest, most dignified, and most moderate language we can command. There is a large section of people in Australia, and, unfortunately, also, I believe, in Great Britain, whose minds, having been inflamed by what is generally known as the capitalistic section of the press, entertain a feeling of antagonism towards Russia in connexion with the present war between that country and Japan, of which the incident before us is a very regrettable outcome. They entertain similarly a feeling in favour of the Japanese. There is a distinct pro-Japanese feeling given expression to by a certain section of the community in Australia and Great Britain. As a friendly nation we should not be asked to take sides with either the Russians or the Japanese. I confess that my sympathies are enlisted on behalf of the European, and not the little brown Asiatic nation. I say that unreservedly. But when we come to consider the incident to which the motion relates, I say it is inconceivable that the Russian Fleet should deliberately and wilfully have done anything of this kind. If, as Senator Symon’s motion states, the Russian Fleet cruelly and wantonly made that attack, and made it in a deliberate way, it must be admitted that it was an absolutely suicidal act for the Russian Fleet and for the Russian nation. The Russian nation, as we know, has as big a fight on her hands just now as it well knows how to manage, and if the very regrettable incident with which we are dealing should result in war between England and Russia at the present time, we know that the Baltic Fleet would toe absolutely at the mercy- of Great Britain. It is in a trap from which there is no escape. In the ordinary course of events there would not appear to be a chance that sl single vessel of the Baltic Fleet could escape. It is therefore not conceivable that those in command of the Baltic Fleet would deliberately have placed themselves in such a position, and it is not reasonable that we should use the strong language which is used in’ the motion submitted by the AttorneyGeneral. I quite agree that it is right that some motion on the subject’ should be moved, but I repeat that it would have been very much better if the feeling of honorable senators had been ascertained in order that a motion on which we could be unanimous might have been submitted to the Senate. If the Attorney-General will accept the amendment that object may still be obtained. Honorable senators on this side have the utmost , sympathy with the unfortunate people who have suffered by this very regrettable incident, but we certainly have no desire to use the incident in such a way as to precipitate a very much greater misfortune.

Senator Macfarlane:

– We must uphold the honour of the nation.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– - Does not the honorable senator think that those who are responsible for the outrage should be hanged ?

Senator GIVENS:

– No one will be found more ready than honorable senators on this side to uphold the honour of the nation when it is attacked, but in this case the whole of the evidence points to a huge blunder or mistake on the part of those in charge of the Baltic Fleet. It does not involve the honour of the nation, and I think it will be proved that the statements which have been made are largely unfounded.

Senator Fraser:

– Did the Russians make reparation when they sank other British ships?

Senator GIVENS:

– We find from the official organ of the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs that a subscription list has already been opened, in St. Petersburg to provide funds to help the unfortunate men who were injured on this occasion.

Senator Millen:

– But can the honorable senator believe the press after what Senator Higgs has told us?

Senator GIVENS:

– When a fact of that kind is allowed to leak out it shows that the Russian people are not unsympathetic. As Senator Higgs has pointed out, no money reparation can be sufficient - no money reparation will give back to the bereaved families their bread-winners. But I ask honorable senators to remember that in this country workmen have been decapitated owing to the fact that employers have taken no .precautions for the safety of those whom they employ. 6264 Russian Attack on [SENATE.] British Fishing Fleet.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator think that that has has anything to do with the question ?

Senator GIVENS:

– And on such occasions there has never been elicited the sympathy which honorable senators ‘are now showing for the sufferers by the occurrence in the North Sea. We should not use an incident which everybody must condemn and regret as a means to inflict a greater misfortune on the world. I agree with the motion in so far as it expresses the hope that nothing will occur to disturb the peaceful relations existing between Russia and Great Britain. War is a misfortune almost as great to the country which wins as to the country which loses. The British people have been engaged in many wars during the past few centuries - indeed, they have scarcely ever been out of war - and we should not do anything to promote further conflicts. The amendment will accomplish all we desire; it will show that we regret the incident, that we condemn the carelessness or blundering which led to it, and express the hope that ample reparation will be made. We should not do anything to embarrass the Imperial authorities in their negotiations. Any motion we pass will be cabled home, and in a few hours will be in London, and in possession of the people of Great Britain, and will undoubtedly have one effect or another. Let us endeavour to make the motion effective in favour of peace between two great European nations, and thus accomplish our purpose, instead of, mayhap, precipitating, or helping to precipitate, a conflict which will be a misfortune, not only to Russia, not only to England, but to Europe and the whole of the civilized world.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I can only express my regret that the motion submitted by the Attorney-General was not carried, as in the House of Representatives, by acclamation and without one jarring note. But the turn which this debate has taken impels me to direct attention - and I regret having to do so - to the fact that whenever there is a possibility of international complications In which England is concerned, there are those who hasten forward as apologists for England’s probable enemies, and, at the same time, are free in launching out. accusations of the most despicable nature against their own country and those who seek to defend it. We have had from Senator Stewart a demand for further evidence before we take action. What evidence does Senator Stewart want more than we have to-day? Is the press of Europe - leaving on one side the much maligned press of his own country - friendly to England? Was any friendliness shown by the European press to England during the South African war ? Has any friendliness to England been shown by that press at any time during the last generation? Has there been, during that time, any friendly feeling on the Continent towards the Empire of which we form a part? But what is the tone and the verdict of the European press to-day? Without exception the press of every continental country, and the press of the United States, denounce the act of the Baltic Fleet in much stronger terms than we have ventured to employ here to-day. Is the opinion of the German press-

Senatorde Largie. - It is the opinion of the English press.

Senator MILLEN:

– Does the German press represent the opinion of England?

Senator de Largie:

– But we get those opinions through the English press.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then we come back to the suggestion that the extracts from the continental press which appear in the English press are all manufactured.

Senator de Largie:

– We cannot rely on them.

Senator MILLEN:

– I say that, at least, the evidence we have before us to-day is very much stronger in support of themotion than any evidence honorable senators opposite can bring forward that the cables are concocted. What is the position? The moment this incident happened every nation, or the press of every nation, at once expressed practically the same opinion that the English press . hold. And since then, seeing the dilatoriness with which Russia has acted, strong terms have been employed, even by the continental papers. To-day we are informed that one of the leading European newspapers has used the particularly suggestive words that it is hopeless for Russia to contend that she is not in fault, and that the sooner she recognises and admits her fault the better.

Senator de Largie:

– If what we hear is true, we can all agree to that opinion.

Senator MILLEN:

– Why this haste to find apologies, excuses, and extenuating circumstances for Russia? Surely honorable senators opposite will show a little leniency to the people of their own country - their own kith and kin ? But all their sympathy

*Russian Attack on* [28 October, 1904.] *British Fishing Fleet.* 6265 is shown to those who are the possible enemies of England. A great deal has happened since the motion was submitted to the New Zealand House of Representatives. That motion might have been a very proper one two days ago, but honorable senators must not overlook the fact that the hope therein expressed has not been fulfilled. When **Mr. Seddon** submitted the motion to the New Zealand Parliament, there was every reason to suppose that the first man in the whole world to come forward and offer every reparation in his power would be the Czar of Russia. But what has happened ? ' So far as the Czar is concerned, there has been practically nothing more than such an expression of sympathy as might be offered if there had been loss of life by an explosion in a mine or a railway accident. As a result, we stand face to face to-day with the fact that the British Government have absolutely issued an ultimatum. And why ? Do the British Government act on garbled cablegrams, and on insufficient evidence? Surely, if there had been any evidence to support the fantastic theory put forward to-day that some of these trawlers were torpedo-boats in disguise - and this shows how little honorable senators appear to know of the difference between a torpedo-boat and a trawler- {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- What honorable senator put forward that theory ? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- **Senator Higgs** did so. If there had been anything to support that theory, surely the Imperial authorities would have ascertained the facts. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- It might as well be said that a mistake could be made as between a motor-car and a hansom cab. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- Exactly. I say again that the position has entirely altered since the motion was passed by the New Zealand Parliament. To-day, owing to the fact that the Czar has not redeemed the hope then entertained - that absolutely nothing has been done except to delay and trifle with the position - the Imperial authorities have been compelled to take up a position which we all regret, but which I, at any rate, support. A motion which might have been sufficient two days ago is totally insufficient to-day. I can only say again that I regret very much that it has been necessary to do more than pass this motion with cordial and unanimous approval, but it would be entirely wrong, and impossible forme, at any rate, to keep silent, when I find countrymen of my own - citizens of the same Empire - expressing sentiments which may be taken to indicate that in time of trouble Great Britain will not be as united as she ought to be, and, as I believe, she will be. {: #debate-0-s8 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia -- With **Senator Givens,** I regret that the Attorney-General did not take an opportunity, some time before the Senate met, to " sound " honorable senators as to their opinions on the motion, so that a unanimous vote might have been obtained. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Will the honorable senator allow me to say that I consulted the leader of the Opposition-? {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- That was only a minute before the Senate met. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Immediately I could do so, I submitted to the leader of the Opposition the form of the motion, of which he approved. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- That, we are told, was only a minute or two before the Senate met. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Immediately it was drawn up I submitted the motion to the leader of the Opposition, and I am proud to say that he approved of its terms. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- It would have been well, under the circumstances, to have withheld the motion, in order to have insured a unanimous expression of opinion. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- The motion could have been submitted this afternoon. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- It seems to me that the Senate is very much in agreement on many points, and I think we could have framed a motion which would have met all objections. In my opinion we could have passed unanimously a much stronger motion than **Senator Higgs** proposes, and such a course would have been more desirable than to have had this discussion. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator Fraser: -- Let **Senator Higgs** withdraw his amendment. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Postpone the discussion until this afternoon. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- No. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- While I totally disagree with the attitude of Senators Higgs, Stewart, and Givens, I at the same time have considerable sympathy with what I know to be the motive which prompts their action. We have been tricked once on a question of this kind by the press of Australia and that fact must give every person considerable sympathy with those who, perhaps, see in the newspaper reports and 6266 *Russian Attack on .* [SENATE.] *British Fishing Fleet.* comments of to-day an attempt to trick us again. But I would remind honorable sentors that the argument of those who, to a large extent, sympathized with the Boer Republics when the unwarranted attack was made on them, was that that attack was brought about by an unjustifiable raid, which had the sympathy of some, at any rate, of the leading politicians of the United Kingdom. I see in the present unwarranted raid on the commerce and workers of Great Britain a very similar occurrence to the Jameson raid in South Africa. As I believed that raid to have been made for the purpose of forcing the Boer Republics into war, so I believe that the present unwarranted attack on peaceful workers of Great Britain is for the purpose of forcing Great Britain into war. I condemn both raids, and for the same reason. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- But Jameson attacked' armed men. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- There was that difference. There was, at any rate, something like equality. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- But Jameson acted deliberately, and it cannot be said positively that the Russians acted deliberately. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- I think we can fairly say that the attack was a deliberate act or a blunder. The guns did not go off by accident, and the firing must have been continuous. We know that modern armaments provide a search-light, and no matter what the object in commencing the firing was, the warships must have known very well before they left the scene of the outrage that the vessels on which they fired were not warships or torpedo boats, but peaceful fishing boats. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Did they not leave one ship behind to watch the boats until 6 o'clock in the morning? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- The reports in the press state that they did. Whatever else they did, they made no attempt to succour the wounded men. When they found that their firing was not replied to ; when they found, as they must have found by the searchlight, that they had made a mistake, and had attacked peaceful fishing boats, they never attempted to do what the instincts of common humanity should have prompted them to do. They did not remain to succour those whom they had attacked. I would remind honorable senators who object to the motion that something has happened since the firing took place. The Russian warships have touched at a French port, where they must have received advice as to the description of the boats they had attacked, and the result of their firing. At that port the Russian shins would be in communication with St. Petersburg by telegraph, and a message could have been flashed to the Czar and his Ministers immediately to the effect that they had made this attack as the result of a belief that they were firing on the enemy, but that they had made a mistake. Russian ships touched at a French port at least two days ago, and, although, as the cables this morning tell us, the Czax and his Ministers know all the circumstances of the case, yet there has been no act of reparation, no apology, no expression of sorrow for the action taken, no succour to the wounded. I would appeal to honorable senators not to allow racial antipathy or an exaggerated feeling against the press of' Australia, for which I believe to a certain extent there is some warrant, tolead them to do an injustice to their own nation, and to the seamen who have been wronged. **Senator** Givens. - What injustice does the amendment propose? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- The amendment is one which could have been accepted by the Senate last Wednesday. On that day it would have been a proper thing for the Senate to express a hope that the Czar would make reparation for what had been done. But three days have elapsed since that motion was carried in the New Zealand Parliament. I venture to say that if it had to be moved there to-day, it would take the form of the motion submitted by the AttorneyGeneral. **Senator Higgs** has said that by the motion we condemn the Russian people. I can find in the motion a condemnation of the Russian official class-of the Ministers of the Czar - but certainty no condemnation of the Russian people. Those who know how the official class exercise their power in Russia can see in the motion no condemnation of the Russian people. I believe, with **Senator Higgs,** that the Russian people do not entertain any hostile feeling to the British or any other nation except, perhaps, the one with which they are now at war. But I must not close my eyes to the fact that it is not to the Russian people, but to the ruling class, that we can look for reparation or apology, and it is from that class that we ask that the British Government shall demand full reparation and apology. Our attitude in regard to the parties engaged in this terrible war in Man- churia ought not to influence our consideration of this motion. I reciprocate the sentiments of **Senator Givens.** My sympathy in this war is with the European nation as against the Asiatic nation. But I do not allow that fact to interfere in any way with my attitude on this motion. Had this outrage been perpetrated by Japanese ships, I venture to say that the motion would have been tabled in precisely the same form. It is of no consequence to us which nation perpetrated the outrage. It is sufficient for us to know that there has been an outrage on our fellow-subjects, and that for four days there has been no recompense made, no reparation offered, no full apology tendered, no official recognition of the responsibility of the Russian Government for the acts of their servants. During that period the Russian Government must have been in communication with their fleet, because on two occasions a portion of the fleet has been in harbor, and the Admiral has bad an opportunity of communicating with the Ministers. Under these circumstances, I hold that the delay has merely aggravated the original offence. I shall support the motion as it stands. In view of the necessity which exists for unanimity, and in view of the fact that the motion does not reflect on the Russian nation, but merely on its responsible Ministers, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn in order that we may get a unanimous expression of opinion by the Senate. {: #debate-0-s9 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- I rise to support the amendment ; but not out of any sympathy with Russian officialism. All my life I have had an antipathy which would not permit me to sympathize with Russian officialism, or aristocracy. The result of my reading has been to prejudice that class in my eyes in every possible way. Whilst I admit that a motion of this kind may be necessary, I submit that it is moved either too soon or a few clays too late. Had it been moved when we received' the first notification of this outrage, we should have been quite entitled to pass it without any comment. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Apparently the Government waited to see how the cat was going to jump. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Do not say that. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I do not think that we have any better evidence on which to form an opinion now than we had then. It must be remembered how war news fil ters through the press. We have been tricked so often that I think we should be very foolish if we accepted all that appears in the press in time of war. It takes a considerable time for the truth in connexion with great international affairs to reach the people of this country. It would have been better if the motion had been withheld until the next sitting of the Senate, when the full circumstances will be known. The British Government have demanded a prompt reply to their despatch, and when it ds received we shall be in a far better position to say what form our motion should take. I propose to quote an extract in order to give the Senate an idea of the feeling which prevails in Russia, so far as we can ascertain it. I do not mean to say that this report is better than anything else we get in a time of war excitement. We have to take everything we see in the press with a grain of salt, but our newspapers of Wednesday last published this cablegram : - >The Russian press censor only permitted the St. Petersburg evening papers to state concerning the Dogger Bank outrage that a collision occurred in the North Sea, with some casualties resulting. Russian officials who are cognisant of the truth are horrified and amazed at the mishap. Count Lamsdorm, the Russian Foreign Minister, is reported to have declared promptly that Russia will make full reparation, if the facts, as stated in England, are correct. In order to allow ample time for a reply to be made by the Czar, I think it would be better for both the motion and amendment to be withdrawn, because if the outrage is as great as is reported, and seemingly it is, our resolution ought to be even more strongly worded. But we ought to hear the reply of the Russian authorities before we take any action in the Senate. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Before the Senate could meet again the incident in its present phase would be closed or developed into something far more serious, and a resolution then would .be useless. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- We should be able to express our feelings in stronger terms, and perhaps, in all the circumstances, it would be more fitting to wait until next week. If the motion and the amendment be withdrawn, I can assure honorable senators that my sympathy will, if the facts prove to be as stated, prompt me to vote for a more strongly worded motion. To show how much I sympathize with Russia, let me say that I hope the present war will bring about a state of affairs which will sweep Russian officialism and aris- I tocracy off the face of the earth. 6268.Russian *Attack on* [SENATE.] *British Fishing Fleet.* {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- That is rather an unfortunate remark to make in a Parliament. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I hope that that will be the result of the present war, and if it is I think that the world will be the richer. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- The honorable member's. sympathies are not with Russia, then? {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Nor with the Asiatic people either. I hope that, in Kilkenny cat fashion, they will finish one another. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The honorable senator would like the Japanese to be put into the ocean ? {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I am not here as a special pleader for the Japanese. I repeat the expression of my hope that no action will be taken by the Senate until the reply of the Russian authorities to the British Government has been given. {: #debate-0-s10 .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia -- The position is altogether too important to be allowed to pass without at least indicating the current of my feelings. The evidence, so far as it goes, seems to show that there has been, as is stated in the motion, wanton cruelty perpetrated. For this reason, I deeply regret that an amendment has been moved. I sincerely regret that an attempt should be made to divide the Senate into two parties on a question which intensely affects us all as Britishers. Our sympathies' would certainly go out to any nation that had suffered in the. same manner as our own people have suffered on this occasion. If we can so heartily sympathize with the people of other nations, our sympathies must go out towards those with whom we are allied in kinship and brotherhood. The' supporters of the amendment have advised very great caution in the absence of more definite information. Hut in taking up the newspapers I find that the British Government appears to be well informed concerning what has occurred. England is much closer to Russia than we are, and the British Government appear to be in close touch with the whole of the circumstances. They have given the Russian Government until mid-day to-day to do certain things, after which a Cabinet meeting is to be held to determine on British action. I therefore come to the conclusion that British statesmen have decided that an act has been perpetrated which demands reparation ; and I am prepared to believe that there is some truth in the cablegrams. It must be remembered that although the Russian fleet was not far away from its own country, it appears to have failed to give definite information as to whathas occurred, and the Russian Government has failed to make prompt reparation. Under all the circumstances, I am prepared to support the motion. {: #debate-0-s11 .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
Tasmania -- I had hoped that this motion would be unanimously carried by the Senate. I still trust that such will be the case. I have every respect for the earnestness of my colleagues, **Senator Higgsand Senator Givens.** I sympathize with their motives, because I know that they are good, and I trust that they will not be misunderstood in moving and supporting the amendment. But nevertheless, I hope that they will not push the amendment to a division, and that the motion of the Attorney-General will be unanimously carried. Like other honorable senators, I should have preferred notice to be given of the motion ; but, after all, we have had just as much notice as had the members of another place. I do not agree with **Senator Higgs** and **Senator Givens** that the present case affords any parallel with the circumstances of the South African war. The incident which has lately occurred was sudden, and it requires prompt treatment. Had such an incident occurred in Australian waters - had a, fleet of fishermen from our coasts been fired upon by a foreign vessel - we should have expected not merely sympathy, but practical help from Great Britain. While I am entirely in accord with what has been said concerning the misrepresentations of the press in connexion with the South African war, yet I must insist that this is not a parallel case in any sense. We must trust the British people, through their leaders, in the present crisis, and we are doing no more than we ought to do in expressing our sympathy with them. I should like to see the whole Parliament united in regard to the matter ; and while I agree that we ought notto get hysterical, I do not think that it will show hysteria to pass the motion submitted by the AttorneyGeneral unanimously. **Senator Higgs** must remember that the motion does hot declare war. It simply expresses our sympathy on account of the wanton attack made by the Russian Fleet. I should not object if the words " or criminal blunder " were added. Possibly the attack was wanton, but if it was a blunder at all, it was undoubtedly a criminal blunder. If it was a wanton attack, it deserves all the condemnation which *Russian Attach on* [28 October, 1904.] *British Fishing Fleet.* 6269 the motion expresses, and more. If it was a criminal blunder, I hardly think that the terms usedare too strong. I rose because I had a hope that **Senator Higgs** would recognise the wisdom and force of what had been said, and would allow the motion to be passed unanimously. I believe that, after further consideration, he will consent to that course. {: #debate-0-s12 .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -I have no intention to appeal to my honorable friends, **Senator Higgs, Senator Stewart,** and **Senator de** Largie, to withdraw their amendment, and allow the Senate to be unanimous on this question. Knowing those honorable senators as I do, I am aware that they never take any action until they have duly thought it out, and when they have thought out a question they do not lightly change their course. They are entitled to their opinion; but I hold an absolutely opposite view, and am determined to stick to it. I agree with **Senator O'Keefe** that the motion submitted by the Attorney - General is not too strong; indeed, it is scarcely strong enough to meet the circumstances of the case. **Senator Higgs,** and those who agree with him, think that the action of the Rusian Fleet was an accident, or at the very worst, a blunder. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- We do not say what it was; we say that there is not sufficient information. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- It could not have been an accident, because guns do not go off of themselves. I do not think it was a blunder. My opinion is, and was from the very commencement, as many honorable senators know, that it was a deliberate attack - that there was a deliberate intention to destroy human life, and that British life. Imagine the scene when that great fleet attacked a number of peaceful fishermen, who were merely carrying on their ordinary avocation, and who probably had nothing more effective with which to defend themselves than a dead herring. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Does the honorable senator really think that the Russian Fleet deliberately fired on the fishermen? {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- I am led to that conclusion, not altogetherfrom this particular incident in itself. I regard this as the culmination of a long scries of actions which have been committed by the Russian authorities, not only during the present struggle, but on many other occasions. But even during the present struggle, what can we think of the action of the Russians in sinking the *Knight Commander ?* We know from men upon whom we can absolutely rely - from those upon whom we relied during the progress of the South African war - namely, the war correspondents - what has occurred. We know that the Russians have departed altogether from international honour in laying mines ten miles from the shore, in the track of merchant shipping. They have, in a number of cases, committed acts which are not creditable to the governing authorities in Russia, and of which the Russian nation knows nothing, and is not likely to know anything. This time they have gone a little further than they did before; and I consider that if the Baltic Fleet were permitted to get away without punishment of some description for this particular outrage, the next one would be more serious still. Prompt action is required to prevent anything of the kind occurring in the near future, or even in the distant future. Just look at the information which we have obtained concerning the incident from the blunder point of view. I know that some of my honorable friends will say that the cablegrams published in the newspapers are untruthful and unreliable. They may be. But I should like to direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that it is not fair to reject the cable messages onone side and to accept, without question, those on the other side. If honorable senators reject the later cables, concerning the details of this gross outrage, would it not be more consistent on their part toreject as being unauthentic the cable that any outrage has taken place at all, or that the British Government has submitted an ultimatum to be answered by noon to-day ? It has been said that the Australian people were tricked by the daily press during the trouble in South Africa, and it is argued that there is therefore a great possibility that we are again being tricked in a similar manner. But I say the cases are not parallel. There is not a single point of resemblance between the condition of affairs during the time of the South African trouble and that existing at the present time. Let me briefly say that during the time of the South African war the cable messages appearing in the daily press of Australia as giving the views of the Continental press showed that they were entirely anti-British and pro-Boer, and that a violent epidemic of anglophobia had broken out all over the Continent at that time. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Was not the honorable senator of the same opinion ? I understood that he was. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Yes, absolutely. Let **Senator Higgs** make no mistake, and let not the honorable senator misinterpret what I arn stating. I am showing the difference between the position of affairs during the time of the Boer war and the present time, in view of the outrage which we are now discussing. I say that at the time of the Boer war, the Continental press were smitten with a bad attack of anglophobia. They were all against the Britisher and in favour of the Boers. A very large section of the American press at that time was also in favour of the Boers, and in England 'itself all the liberal and radical papers were against the war, and in favour of the Boers. But what is the position to-day with respect to this matter? The whole of the British press, conservative, radical, and liberal alike, are unanimous in condemning this affair as a gross outrage, and in calling on the British Government to take prompt and effective measures to prevent anything of the kind occurring again," and to punish those who have been responsible for the outrage. In addition to that, the Continental press is not anti-British on this occasion, but is in favour of the British, and against the Russians. So is the American press, and some American newspapers ha've plainly intimated that if England is not fit to punish in this matter, " Uncle Sam" would not need a great deal of coaxing to come along and give a helping hand. It should surely be admitted that while we had good reason to be suspicious of, and to distrust, what appeared in our conservative organs in Australia regarding the truth of matters in South Africa, we have not the shadow of a reason to hold that opinion regarding this matter, because the whole of the press is unanimous on this subject. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- .Therefore, what they say must be true? {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- The presumption is that it is true. In the circumstances, to quote what occurred in connexion with the South African war does not make a case against those who are in favour of the motion submitted bv the AttorneyGeneral. My own opinion is that if the regret of Russian officialdom, with the Czar at its head, had any semblance of sincerity in it, we should not have had the feeble, wishywashy message which has been sent by the Czar; there would have been a more prompt and vigorous expression of regret than that message. If the Czar had really felt any deep and sincere regret for the criminal acts of his officers in charge of the Baltic Fleet he would have made a much more vigorous protest, and he would Have accompanied his message of regret with a cheque for £1,000 or more for the immediate relief of the sufferers from the criminal act of his officers. I do not know what terms have been submitted as adequate reparation for this outrage, but no mere expression of sympathy and monetary recompense will, to my mind, be sufficient. I believe that the fullest and closest investigation should be made, and the officers who are responsible for this dastardly outrage should be punished in the way in which we know how to punish our Jackthe-Rippers and our Deemings. {: #debate-0-s13 .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia · Free Trade -- It is a matter for extreme regret that in a time of national crisis like the present a debate should take place on a motion of this kind, proposed by the Government, and approved, as I understand, by the leader of the Opposition in another place. We should have adopted the course followed in another place, and agreed to the motion unanimously, without haggling as to its terms. We know that in this matter the British people are in the right. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator Fraser: -- And we would support them if they were in the. wrong. That is the right sort of man. **Senator STANIFORTH** SMITH.I am not one of those who think in that way. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator Fraser: -- Then the honorable senator is not a friend at all. **Senator STANIFORTH** SMITH.When we are in the right in a crisis such as this, it is our duty to stand together and to show our entire sympathy with the attitude which Great Britain has taken up. It has always seemed to me to be most extraordinary that democrats, whose political views and sympathies are always on the side of the oppressed, should constitute themselves the apologists for the greatest and most cruel despotism in Europe, with the exception of Turkey. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- We do not do anything of the kind. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- The system of government in Russia is the most cruel despotism in Europe, .with the exception of that of Turkey. **Senator Givens.** - Who attempts to justify it ? {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- It has appeared to me that some honorable *Russian Attack on[28* October, 1904.] *British Fishing Fleet.* 6271 senators opposite have desired to minimize the outrage which has been committed by the Russians. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- Nothing of the kind. The honorable senator is adopting Russian methods. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- They have made light of the injuries done to the fishers in the North Sea. SenatorHiggs. - The honorable senator has no right to say that; the statement is absolutely misleading. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- The war between Russia and Japan is the result of the greed and earth-hunger of the Russian people. The Czar has calmly said that he is willing to sacrifice the lives of every one of his subjects in order to win in that war. In the course of their conduct of the war the Russian people have constituted themselves international pirates. They have broken everyrule of international policy on the high seas; they have wantonly taken the lives of neutrals, and have committed outrages which previously have been committed only by pirates flying the black flag. In the case of the *Knight Commander,* referred to by **Senator Dawson,** after the vessel had actually surrendered, and the Russians had searched her for contraband of war, they sank her. Just as every man is held to be innocent until he has been proved to be guilty, so every ship carrying cargo is held to be neutral until a prize court has been constituted, and a decision given that she is carrying contraband. This ship, though she was by international law, free from hostile attack, was sunk by the Russians, who deliberately trained their guns on her. If Great Britain had not been a long-suffering nation, that incident would have constituted a *causus belli,* and war against Russia would have been declared at once. The Russians have now in the North Sea deliberately sunk some of the vessels belonging to British fishermen, and when the Russian com- mander reached France he expressedhis regret that they had not sunk more of those vessels. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Does the honorable senator believe that? **Senator STANIFORTH** SMITH.Senator Higgs will believe anything that is said in favour of the Russians, and is ready to distrust any cable of a contrary nature. I think it regrettable that at a time like this action taken by the British people, which may be considered blameworthy, should be put forward, while the splendid achievements of the British race in the interests of humanity are minimized, or are not mentioned. Some honorable senators have brought forward instances in which British people have committed acts for which they might fairly be blamed. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- And the honorable senator has supported them. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- I have never supported what I believe to be wrong. We' have sprung from English, Irish, and Scotch ; we are fledglings of the British nest, and it seems to me that it is as unnatural for us to speak in continual disparagement of the British people- {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- Who has spoken disparagingly of the British people? {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- I do not propose to individualize. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- It is not necessary. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- Nobody said anything of the kind. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- Any honorable senator who pleases can apply what I have said to himself. I say that it is as unnatural for us to disparage the British people, as it would be for us to disparage and to magnify the faults of our own parents. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- No one has done anything of the kind. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- I am very glad to hear it. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- The honorable senator is insinuating it, but he is not game to say straight out that any particular honorable senator has done so. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- I am game to say that there are certain hon- or able senators who at a time like the present mention events in British history which may be disparaging to Great Britain, whilst they refrain from mentioning British actions which are entitled to the highest praise. I am not one of those who say, " Britain, right or wrong." I do not believe in that. There can be no question that in this instance the British are in the Tight, and I repeat that we should have adopted the motion without debate. I feel sure that it will be carried, and my only regret is that it has not been carried without all this haggling as to its terms. {: #debate-0-s14 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- I rise to support themotion submitted by the Attorney-General. I am not in sympathy with the perpetrators of this outrage; my sympathies are altogether on the other side. So far as the war between Russia and Japan is concerned, I am with **Senator Pearce** in sympathizing always with the European as against the Asiatic nation. I am of opinion that the Attorney-General in moving his motion, was very temperate in the language he used. As a matter of fact, the honorable and learned senator has been complimented by honorable senators on this side on having used- no strong language whatever in submitting his motion. Without dragging in any side issues, I may say that the objection raised is that more information is required. But what more information is required to enable the Senate to agree to a motion of this sort? There is information sufficient to lead us, at any rate, to believe that this action was taken by the Russian Fleet. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- Deliberately ? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I did not say that the action was deliberate, nor does the motion say so. If the motion did say that the action was deliberate, I should be prepared to vote against it. As to more information being required, do honorable senators believe, or do they not believe, that this outrage was perpetrated ? In *my* belief, the outrage was perpetrated, and, in the words of the motion, it was a "cruel" outrage. I think that every honorable senator will agree that it ' was cruel on the part of the Russian. Fleet, after inflicting all this damage and loss of life, not to have made some investigation, as to whether a mistake had been made. The Russian Fleet could not have gone away in the belief that they had been opposed by an armed force, seeing that there were only a few inoffensive trawlers there pursuing their occupation. There has been, I think, a mlsunderstanding in connexion with the motion. The word " wanton " is used, but that does not mean that the occurrence was deliberate or pre-arranged. I understand the word "wanton" to mean that a careless and a cruel outrage was perpetrated upon inoffensive people ; and the motion might be agreed to by every person in Australia without any objection. If the motion had stated that the outrage was pre-arranged or committed under official instructions, I should have been one to ask for its modification. But when we realize, as we all must, that it Was a cruel, wanton, or careless action, we a.re justified in expressing the feelings of resentment which we must feel towards people who, in our opinion, are not fit to take charge of vessels of war on the high seas. I ask honor able senators, who know anything of fishing vessels of this character, whether there was any possibility of a mistake ? Dogger Bank, one of the best fishing grounds, is a part of the sea where hundreds of fishing vessels from the towns on the east coast of England are engaged for six or eight weeks at a time; and when ships of war, or even merchantmen pass, there is a special international signal by which the character of the fishing fleet is at once made known. On numerous occasions I have sailed by the fishing fleets in the English Channel and the North Sea, and I have never known them to fail to give the well-understood signal. And when that is the case in regard to passing merchant vessels, we may be sure that the signal would be shown in the case of a fleet of ships of war. The occurrence seems unaccountable, except by the fact that a panic arose amongst some of the officers of the warships. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Why did the warships not offer succour the next morning? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- The failure to do so is one of the worst features of the case. But my object is merely to show that the motion is one which might well be unanimously passed by the Senate. I could understand **Senator Stewart** raising an objection if he were under the impression that the motion meant that the outrage was deliberate or pre-arranged. But that is not the meaning of the motion ; and if we agree, as I think we shall, that this was a wanton and cruel outrage, we are right in expressing the opinion that the guilty persons should be punished. Had a similar outrage been committed by the British Fleet I should be one of the first to ask that those responsible should be punished for their carelessness. Such men would be better chained up at home than in charge of armed vessels, and free to commit such acts. We are quite within our rights, as **Senator Higgs** proposes in the amendment, in sympathizing with the people who have' suffered from this outrage - with the people who have lost their bread-winners. We are also within our rights in expressing our sympathy on grounds of nationality, and we undoubtedly have a right to ask that not only shall there be reparation and apology, but that those directly responsible shall be punished. {: #debate-0-s15 .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania -- The Senate has been invited, by the representative of the Government, to express, in conjunction with the other Chamber, on the part of the people of Australia their indignation at an action which every one admits affords jus': cause for indignation. Notwithstanding this debate, there has been great unanimity shown on the part of honorable senators. We can even respect the opinions of the three honorable senators who support the amendment, and we have no right to charge them with want of loyalty for regarding the matter from their own point of view. I think, however, that **Senator Higgs** would only do justice to himself, to his supporters, and to the Senate, if he were to withdraw the amendment. It is no part of our duty to find excuses for Russia - that is a matter for Russia herself. The outrage is one which it is very hard to imagine was premeditated. We can hardly think there was any deliberate intention to do this mischievous work ; we must suppose that those responsible acted in a fit of drunkenness, cowardice, or insanity. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- It was a criminal blunder. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator MULCAHY: -- Whatever the cause, it is not for us to find extenuating circumstances. There has been plenty of time for Russia to do that; but up to the present there is no record of any reparation or explanation of anything like the proper character. Therefore, it seems to me that we can cordially indorse the wording of the motion, though it might have been better had the Attorney-General taken care to ascertain that it would be acceptable to all honorable senators. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- I did so, as far as I could. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator MULCAHY: -- I know that the motion was referred to the leader of the Opposition, but that gentleman was not in a position to speak on behalf of certain other honorable senators. I hope, however, that **Senator Higgs** will withdraw the amendment, and enable us to give a unanimous expression of opinion, not reflecting on the Russian people as a whole, but reflecting on people who are evidently unfitted for the responsible positions they hold. **Senator STEWART** (Queensland).- I certainly should not have taken the trouble to speak on the amendment were it not for the statements and insinuations of several honorable senators. I complain principally of **Senator Millen,** and also of **Senator Smith. Senator Millen** reminds me very much of the Pharisee of whom we read in the Scriptures, who went to the temple, folded his hands, looked up towards heaven, and thanked- God that he was not as other men. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- On this occasion I certainly do. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: **- Senator Millen** would appear to be the only repository of loyalty in the Chamber. Honorable senators on this side of the. Chamber- {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Only those who have spoken in support of the amendment. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- Honorable senators who have spoken in the interests of fair play and justice-^- {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- To Russia. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator Fraser: -- Are honorable senators not always in favour of fair play and justice? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- Those honorable senators are counted as disloyal to the Empire. The insinuation, and the maker of it, are contemptible, and that being the case, I deem neither worthy of any further notice. **Senator Smith** said something about democrats as men who are always supposed to see that justice is done. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I asb' the honable senator to take his seat. The honorable senator is speaking for the second time, and is discussing the amendment, and in so doing he must confine himself to the amendment alone. The honorable senator cannot speak again on the original question. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Can the honorable senator call another honorable senator " contemptible " ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- **Senator Stewart** must confine himself to the amendment. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I support the amendment, and in doing so I submit that I must refer to the motion, because my reason for supporting the amendment is that I consider it an improvement on the motion. I must give my reasons for supporting the amendment. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Deal with the statement of **Senator Smith,** that we want to curtail sympathy with the sufferers. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- It appears to me that a number of honorable senators have, so to speak, " lost their heads " over this matter. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- Like the Russian commander. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- Some honorable senators seem to have lost their hearts. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- We want to find out whether the Russian commander did lose his head, or whether the occurrence was accidental ; and until we do find that out, we ought to suspend judgment. Honorable senators who support the motion remind me very much of certain people in Scotland in the old barbarous times, out of which we do not seem to have altogether emerged even in Australia. Those people dispensed what was called Jedburgh justice - that is, they hanged a man first and tried him afterwards, when he was' not in a position to defend himself. All we claim is that we. should hear the other side. At present we have only an *ex parte* statement, conveyed to us per medium of newspaper cable messages. I remember that, not so very long ago, **Senator Dawson** withered up the newspapers with his scorn and contempt. On dozens of occasions he has called them the lineal descendants of Ananias, but now he takes them to his boson:. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Certain newspapers. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- The honorable senator says that the newspapers are telling the truth on this occasion, and he tries to buttress his case by saying that the Continental, American, and English newspapers are all at one on the point. He knows nothing whatever about their opinions. He is simply assuming that position, because it suits him, and if something else suited him five minutes hence, he would take up exactly the opposite position. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Excuse me, my name is not Stewart. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- All that the supporters of the amendment say is that the other side should be heard. The AttorneyGeneral is now, I believe, retreating, or endeavouring to retreat, from the position which he originally took up. He says in his motion that the Russian Fleet made "a cruel and wanton attack." {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Hear, hear ! I reaffirm that. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- The honorable and learned senator knows very much better than I do, that the essence of an offence lies in the intention. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- That is too technical. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- According to the motion, the Russian Fleet intended to attack the trawlers, knowing what they were. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- It does not say so. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I take my stand on the words of the motion, and the AttorneyGeneral sees now that he has gone too far, because he disowns any intention of ' accusing the Russian Fleet of deliberately attacking the trawlers. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- He never did accuse them of doing that. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- What is meant by the phrase " the cruel and wanton attack " ? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- What was it? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- What other read- > ing can be given to the phrase? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- It will not bear the interpretation. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- Does my honorable friend understand the English language, or is he attempting to create a new language? I should advise him to refer to the dictionary. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- Here it is ; either Webster's or Johnson's. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- Is .it the language of the motion that the honorable senator is discussing ? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- Yes. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- Is the honorable senator in order, sir, in discussing the language of the motion ? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I cannot discuss the amendment without referring to the motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The rule is that when an honorable senator has spoken to the original question, and an amendment has been moved subsequently, he may speak again, but must confine his remarks to the amendment. I confess that it is exceedingly difficult for a speaker to confine himself to the amendment, and not to say anything about the motion to which it relates. I ask the honorable senator to confine himself to the amendment, as far as possible. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I shall bring before the notice of **Senator Clemons** a very familiar example. Supposing that in the heat of debate I happened to hit **Senator Playford** on the cheek, would he be warranted in accusing me of attacking him? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- No; but he would be warranted in asking the honorable senator for an apology at once. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- Certainly, he would be warranted in asking for an apology, and I would be justified in giving him one. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- And he would be warranted in displaying a feeling of indignation, too. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- He might ; but if it were a pure accident, what then ? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Surely he would still be entitled to an apology? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Supposing that it was done, not in the heat of debate, but in cold blood? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- If I did it intentionally, that would be an attack. But there is a very material difference between an accident and an attack. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator Fraser: -- Suppose that the honorable senator killed **Senator Playford,** what then? . {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I should have killed him, probably, by accident. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- And what would happen? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I should not be hanged. No one in this Chamber knows better than the honorable and learned senator that it is the intention which is considered. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- If the honorable senator meant to kill, he would be hanged, but if he did no.t mean to kill, he would be sent to gaol, perhaps for twenty years. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- If I killed **Senator Playford** by accident, I should be found guilty, perhaps, of manslaughter, and the surrounding circumstances would regulate the sentence very materially. We have an exactly similar case in connexion with the Russian ships. It is alleged that they fired on the trawlers; but they reply that they took them to be Japanese torpedo-boats. Those of us who object to the motion are accused of favouring Russia and its institutions. **Senator Smith** is adopting the Russian method. He is asking us to send the Russian Fleet to Siberia without a trial, or an opportunity to give their version. But we who are the despised only ask for fair play. We wish to hear the Russian version of this matter before we accuse them. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- Our only channel of knowledge is the press. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- And a very filthy channel it is, so far as this matter is concerned. We know perfectly well that in Great Britain there is a strong anti-Russian feeling, which 1 is being fomented by the press. In fact, a great- number of our newspapers are infected with what may be called Russophobia. On every possible occasion they try to inflame the minds of the people of Great Britain against Russia, to kindle the fires of discord between the two countries. They never lose an opportunity of exaggeration, aggravation, or saying anything likely to lead to a breach of the public peace. I submit that the Senate will be best considering its own dignity as an impartial tribunal if it waits until it can hear the other side before condemning, not only the Russian Fleet, but the Russian nation. What a mockery it is that we, who have been discussing the question of arbitration for a week, should be asked to pass this motion without hearing from the other side in this- matter. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- It does not condemn them at all. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- It accuses the Russian Fleet of making a cruel and wanton attack on the fishing boats. If I were to accuse the honorable senator of attacking **Senator Findley** in a cruel and wanton manner, would he not consider that I had aspersed his character? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- Not if I had done it. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- If the honorable senator had not done it, would he not consider that I was libelling him, and would he not be justified if he demanded an apology from me? {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- But the Russians have done it. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- Of course, the honorable senator, without any evidence, sits in judgment. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- We have the evidence of French and German newspapers. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- The interjection throws a searchlight on the honorable senator's cast of mind. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- Does the honorable senator mean to say that the Russians did not fire on the trawlers? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- The honorable senator is a bitter partisan, and is not fit to sit in judgment on anything, not even on a hen-coop. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- Question ! {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I think I am speaking to the question all the time. "All we who support the amendment ask is that we shall not condemn Russia without hearing her explanation ; that we shall not take any action now which we may regret afterwards. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- We are not going to war. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I think that it is extremely fortunate for us that **Senator Dawson** lost the office of Minister of 'Defence, because if he had been still holding that portfolio the probability is that war would have been declared between Russia and Australia. Some honorable senators have expressed the hope that **Senator Higgs** will withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will do nothing of the kind. But if the Attorney-General will excise the words "cruel and wanton" I shall be prepared to support his motion. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- Perhaps the honorable senator wishes the words " pleasant and kindly " to be put in. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- No. I am really surprised that the recognised authority on statistics here should be contented with the little amount of evidence that he has. I trust that the Attorney-General will amend his motion. I am very anxious that the Senate should be unanimous, but I could not conscientiously vote for the motion in its present form, and if it is not amended I shall be compelled to vote for the amendment. **Senator Sir JOSIAH** SYMON (South Australia - -Attorney-General). - I do not altogether regret a considerable part of the discussion which has taken place, although I should very deeply regret, and I feel sure that every honorable senator would share that regret with me, if we did not pass this motion as I moved it without dissent. No one recognises more amply than I do the conscientious sense of duty which has prompted every honorable senator who has criticised the terms of the motion, and also the conscientious sense of duty which has prompted **Senator Higgs** in moving the amendment, I think mainly with a view to crystallizing the discussion. But at the same time I appeal to him, as others have done, to withdraw it. It has secured its object. It has enabled honorable senators, with the most perfect freedom, which we hope will always be exercised here, to state their views, however diverse they may be. Having accomplished that object, I hope that I am not appealing in vain to my honorable friend when I ask him now to withdraw the amendment. If there is any blame attachable to me in respect of any shortcoming in ascertaining the feelings of honorable senators before I entered the chamber this morning, I take it. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- The notice was very short. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I agree that it is desirable on every occasion to secure, as Senators Pearce and Givens have said, an assurance of unanimity, not merely in the purpose of a motion of .this kind, but in its terms. I can only say, as I have already said, that if honorable senators think I was remiss in anything that I did in that regard, I crave: pardon. I wish to say, however, that I did what I think is customary, and what I' should expect my honorable friends opposite to do when they resume their places on. this side of the table, if they happen to be similarly placed. At the earliest momentI conferred with the leader of the Opposition, and put him in full possession of what I contemplated, and ascertained that the terms of the motion had his approval. I think that is the method that is customarily pursued on occasions of this sort. I offer that as a justification, at all events as a mitigation of the offence, if honorable senators think there is one. It was impossible to communicate earlier with my honorable friends opposite. The position this morning is critical. An ultimatum appears to have been, presented - I think a justifiable ultimatum, i'f I may say so much. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- If the facts are as stated, there is no doubt about it. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I desire to refrain from inflammatory language. I desire to refrain from expressing condemnation. I desire to refrain from saying one word in reflection upon the people of Russia, who are passing through a great trial, and who are. largelykept in ignorance by their rulers of the true facts. But this morning we have the intimation that things have reached a most critical stage. Whilst we are sitting here debating the terms of this motion, a state of war may arise between these two great nations. My belief is that this motion is in the interests of peace. I take a higher view of the influence of the Parliament of this Commonwealth and of this Senate, and of the Commonwealth itself, than perhaps seme people do. I believe in the ' moral effect of a resolution of this kind. I believe that the influence of Australia, by such an expression of opinion as this motion embodies, will directly tend to the maintenance of peace. If I thought that it would have the effect which some honorable senators seem to fear - I will not say to prophesy - that it might tend to war. I should be the 'last to stand here and move it. But I believe that the unanimity of the great self-governing parts of this Empire, in their sympathy with and approval1 of1 the action which! has been taken to enforce upon Russia the prompt recognition of her Obligations, will probably - I hope may certainly - exercise an influence upon the minds of the governing people in that country which will make for peace. I did not think that it was necessary that I should enter into details as to the exact terms of the motion, because, when one is moving a motion of this description, it is the spirit alone to which we should have regard, and not its exact verbal terms, measured bv rule and line, or by the accuracy of the grammarian. Does this motion express our sentiment of sympathy ? Doesit express our desire that peace shall be maintained ? My honorable friend's amendment, if he will allow me to point this out, omits the pacific portion of my motion, which says - >The Senate most earnestly hopes that the peace existing between the British Empire and the Empire of Russia will be preserved by a frank and honorable observance on the part of Russia of her obligations. Not a word of condemnation, **Mr. President.** {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- I do not object to that portion. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- My honorable friend's amendment omits that portion. I do not wish to criticise it verbally, but under no circumstances does the amendment go so far in its influence towards peace as does this motion in its entirety. If I omitted to refer in detail to the exact terms of the motion, it was because I thought that its spirit would be clear, and that I might appeal to our kinship - that I might appeal to the fact that we are of the same blood as these injured fishermen - and that that would be enough without commenting upon each word and each phrase, to recommend the motion to the acceptance of my honorable friends. **Senator Stewart** asks, " Why call what happened an attack?" Was there an attack? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- That is the question. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- Undoubtedly there was an attack. The man who hits his fist against the wall makes an attack upon the wall. Did. the event happen ? Undoubtedy it happened. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- It might have happened bv accident. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- But did it happen ? If it happened that is one step. Did it happen by accident? Did the guns go off by accident? Nobody pretends anything of the kind. Was it by mistake? My honorable friend puts these possibilities, but no one seriously pretends that, the guns went off by mistake or by accident. It is said that there was a panic in the Russian Fleet, and that the officers lost their heads, because they were afraid there were Japanese torpedo boats in these narrow seas. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- But they shot straight all the same. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- Yes, indeed. Lastly, was it by design? "By design " does not necessarily mean that this great fleet of forty vessels fired their guns upon a lot of inoffensive fishermen as though in broad daylight for the purpose of smashing them up and destroying human life. Surely it is not necessary to establish that to justify this motion. But if it was by mistake - I eliminate accident, I eliminate design - they could instantly have apologized', and at least one of the vessels should have remained behind to ascertain the truth, and to succour the men wounded and drowning. When I find it admitted that a number, of innocent fishermen, pursuing their industry in the peaceful night watches, were fired upon, and lives taken, then I say that an apology should instantly have been forthcoming. There was no need to wait for a claim for compensation to be made. If a body of soldiers, or a body of sportsmen, in passing through my neighbourhood, fired and injured or killed any of my children by accident or by mistake, what should I expect them to do? To stop and endeavour to assist the little ones, and to apologize straight away. The explanation as to whether the occurrence was an accident, or took place by design, or whatever you like to call it - all that, and the reparation could come afterwards. But no reparation, no offer of reparation, whether adequate monetarily or not, would compensate for that injury, but I should' expect immediate and ample expression of sorrow by those who inflicted it. If **Mr. Richard** 1 Seddon's resolution had been submitted here three or four days ago, it might have been acceptable to this Senate. But it has been resultless. And for anybody to tell me that a feeble expression of regret - personal regret - by the Czar is the sort of thing that ought to satisfy British people smarting under such an outrage as this, is not merely an affront to me as a man, but an affront to me as a British citizen. When you ask me about information, I reply that the only information I require is the information that this outrage has been committed ; and the wounds of these poor fishermen -are mouths which cry aloud to us for sympathy with the bereaved and the wounded - for indignation against the perpetrators - for sympathy with our fellowcountrymen, and for support to our nation in seeing that justice is done. I believe, **Mr. President,** that as between man and man there are but two conclusions which can be arrived at. If the outrage were committed intentionally, or if these Russians were careless as to whether they inflicted wounds and wrought destruction or not, their act was murder. If it was done by mistake the act may be manslaughter. But it is either one or the other. No one can pretend it was what lawyers call - if I may be pardoned for using the expression - " justifiable homicide." Justifiable homicide is committed when you do something in self-defence. But some of these humble fishermen who were killed were photographed, and the photographs show that this terrible death overtook them with knives and flitches of fish in their hands pursuing their avocations, and not offering battle or provocation. This outrage is an insult to us all, and it would be a degradation to Australia if we suppressed our sentiments under such circumstances as these. No one could have been kindlier in his remarks concerning my,self than my honorable friend, **Senator Riggs.** was when he alluded to the fact that I refrained from inflammatory language. I do not consider what I have now said to be inflammatory. I am merely stating the facts, and I am endeavouring to state them with that feeling which I should be less than human if I did not avow. I desire that we shall be unanimous. There was an attack undoubtedly. It was wanton in that it was unprovoked. It was at least grossly careless. What more do we say ? It was cruel, and we express our indignation on account of its cruelty. It was a wanton attack by the Russian Fleet upon British fishermen engaged in their peaceful occupations, and we are justified in sympathizing with the British Government. We are justified in expressing the hope that the British Government will insist upon full reparation in every sense. We do not condemn the Russian people. We do not doubt that they will themselves insist upon a full reparation in every sense. {: .speaker-JTV} ##### Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- They do not know the facts. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- When we see, as my honorable friends have reminded me, that a censorship withholds from these people the facts, so that they have no means of knowing the truth, we are right in assuming that it is the governing people who are responsible. And when we see - and I do not say that the statement is to be accepted as true absolutely, though it is natural and probable under the Russian autocracy - that the military party are minimizing the outrage and exhibiting a truculence as well as an airy lightness in dealing with it, suggesting that it was merely the fleet coming into collision with a lot of trawlers, it must be admitted that the situation is a dangerous one. We are not called upon to express any opinion of the Russian people, and I hope we shall not find ourselves in a position in which it can be suggested that we are attempting to do so. We are not doing so. The attack was cruel and wanton, that is what we say - but we hope that peace will be maintained between these two great Empires, by Russia frankly, as she should have done days ago, making the *amende honorable,* not with an apology wrung from her, but with the voluntary apology which should have been given within an hour of the time when she became acquainted with the occurrence. I have almost concluded. I feel that the language of the motion conveys the sentiments of us all. Senators Higgs and Stewart have not been slower than I have been to express their detestation - if I may use that expression - for the outrage which has been committed, and their sympathy not only with the sufferers but with the whole British people, who are placed in the position of having to vindicate the humblest of their countrymen. I feel sure that my honorable friends opposite will not, even if they differ as to the mere verbiage of the motion - although I consider it unexceptionable - think it necessary on that ground alone to import any element of dissent into this Chamber. I feel sure that we shall express our feelings and views with the same unanimity,. and the same acclamation, which have been exhibited in another place, and that the resolutions of both Houses will go forth to His Majesty the King, and to the Imperial Government, without any discrepancy between them. I believe we shall agree that there shall ' be but one resolution in effect, and that it shall be in keeping with our highest conception of the dignity of the Senate. We should *Coinage of Silver* [28 October, 1904.] *by the Commonwealth.* 6279 do nothing which at any future time may reflect upon the dignity of the Senate. I believe that this motion will redound to our credit if we are unanimous upon it, and I earnestly hope it may have the effect we all desire in promoting, in assisting at any rate, the peaceful termination of this unhappy matter. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- If **Senator Stewart** does not object, I will withdraw the amendment. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- I shall not object, if the honorable senator wants to withdraw it. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question unanimouslyresolved in the affirmative. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I think it will be in order to ask that it should be recorded that the motion has been carried unanimously. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- It will be so recorded. {: .page-start } page 6279 {:#debate-1} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-1-0} #### DUTY ON CHINA OIL {: #subdebate-1-0-s0 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: asked the Attorney- General,upon *notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amount of money was collected in Queensland by the Department of Trade and Customs as duty on China oil from 8th October, 1901, to the date of the issue of Order 480? 1. What was the number of persons making such payments ? 2. What portion of this amount was paid under protest or deposited in terms of section 167 of the Customs Act? 3. What are the number of persons who paid the amounts under protest or by making deposit in terms of section 167 of the Customs Act? 4. What amount has been refunded since date of Order 480? 5. The number of persons to whom refunds have been made? 6. What are the number of persons who have applied for refunds of duty paid or deposits made on China oil since 8th October, 1901, and whose applications have been refused? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- The answer to the honorable senator's questions is as follows : - >Inquiries are now being made for the desired information, which will be supplied as early as possible. {: .page-start } page 6279 {:#debate-2} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-2-0} #### COINAGE OF SILVER BY THE COMMONWEALTH {: #subdebate-2-0-s0 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
for Senator Staniforth Smith asked the AttorneyGeneral, *upon notice -* >Is it the intention of the Government to take any steps with the view of obtaining the consent of the Imperial authorities to the coinage of silver by the Commonwealth? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I would ask that this and the following question be put at the next sitting. Perhaps I might be permitted to say, as has been intimated before, that it is very difficult to obtain answers on Friday to questions placed on the notice-paper on Thursday, and we should be glad if honorable senators would, as far as possible, give a little further notice of their questions." {: .page-start } page 6279 {:#debate-3} ### CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL {:#subdebate-3-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 27th October, *(vide* page 6201), on motion by **Senator Sir Josiah-** Symon - >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-3-0-s0 .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS:
Queensland -- I do not propose to occupy the time of the Senate with any very lengthy remarks upon this Bill. I intend to deal only with a few of the general principles involved, and to leave the discussion of the details until we get into Committee, when I anticipate that I shall have a good deal to say about some of the methods by which it is proposed to give effect to the principles of the measure. The debate on this Bill has revealed a curious state of affairs. It has shown that the support for the Bill, and the principles contained in it, comes from the Opposition side of the Senate, and that the opposition to the measure and its principles comes altogether from honorable senators who support the Government. Almost without exception, honorable senators sitting behind the Government have said that they are opposed to the principle of compulsory arbitration, which is the main principle of this Bill. Yet they are supporting the Government who introduced the measure. Is this an example of the responsible government we were promised when the present Ministry took office ? Is it an example of the responsible government which honorable senators opposite have combined in order to bring into operation. I say that it is a travesty upon responsible government. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Let the honorable senator consider what a comfort it is to us to have the support of our honorable friends opposite. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- It is a curious anomaly. I may or may not be justified, but I do not believe that the members of the Government, in their heart of hearts, are more sincere in favour of the principle involved in this Bill than are any of their supporters. I believe they have introduced it only in deference to the overwhelming public opinion in its favour. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- That is very unkind. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- That belief may or may not be justified, but I think I am entitled to express it. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- The honorable senator should not express it if it is not justified. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I believe that it is justified. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- The honorable senator has just said that it might or might not be justified. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I think that my belief is supported bv the fact that almost every honorable senator behind the Government is absolutely opposed to the principle of the Bill. I should like to congratulate the Attorney-General' on the exceedingly eloquent and. able speech with which he introduced the measure. It was an admirable speech, and I have absolutely no fault to find with it. The most enthusiastic advocate of the Bill might be exceedingly proud to have delivered such a speech in its favour. While, with the greatest pleasure I pay that tribute to the ability and enthusiasm the honorable and learned senator has displayed, I should like to call attention to the fact that there was in the speech a veiled threat held out to the Senate that if it did not deal in a certain spirit, and in a certain way, with this Bill, certain consequences would ensue. In introducing the measure the Attorney-General said that it had already wrecked two Governments, and it only remained for it now to establish a record by wrecking a Parliament. If that" meant anything at all, it meant that if the Senate did not agree to the Bill as received from the House of Representatives, it was possible that there would be a double dissolution, and that the members of the Senate would be responsible for wrecking a Parliament. I am sure that I speak for every member of the party with which I am associated, as well as for myself, when I say that if this Bill were to, wreck a hundred Parliaments, we are not going to abate one jot of our right to amend it in any direction in which we think it ought to be amended in the interests of the people. If in connexion with such a matter we wrecked a hundred Parliaments, all that we should have done would be to refer the question back to our masters, the people, who sent us here. I hold the opinion, which I believe is shared by the Attorney-General and every other honorable senator, that the Senate is a co-ordinate branch of the Federal Legislature. It is as important a part of this Commonwealth! Parliament as is the other House, and that being so we have an undoubted right to exercise the power reposed in us to amend any Bill in any direction we may deem desirable in the interests of the people. I, therefore, resent any threat being held out to the Senate that by taking certain action it may wreck a Parliament. This Senate has a right to resent such a threat, because it is an attempt to intimidate us from doing what we may believe to be right, because some personal penalty may follow. That consideration should only spur us to the performance of our duty. The man who will only do what is right because pf some reward, or because no ill consequence may follow, is deserving of very little praise. We should do what is right and just irrespective of consequences, and that is the principle which should animate every member of the Senate in dealing with a measure of this kind. There is just one point in the AttorneyGeneral's speech to which I desire to call attention, and which emphasizes what I said at the opening of my speech as to the sort of responsible government Ave now have in the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General pointed out that this Senate, as especially representing the States, has to safeguard States rights. The honorable and learned senator intimated that there was one provision in the Bill which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, is an infringement of States rights. That is the provision dealing with the inclusion of public servants within the operation of the Bill, and this the Attorney-General invited this Senate, as the custodian of States rights, to eliminate. But when challenged on the point, he did not, and could not, say that the Government would propose to strike out the clause. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- I did not invite the Senate to eliminate the provision ; I said that the Government would support its inclusion in the Bill. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- Anybody who reads the Attorney-General's speech, as I did, and with very great pleasure, will find that there is a plain invitation to the Senate to safeguard States rights. We were invited to consider whether it was not our duty to eliminate the provision; which the honorable and learned senator thought was unconstitutional, and an infringement of States rights; but, in reply to an interjection, he said that the Government would not propose its elimination. If that is the sort of responsible Government we have, I say that it is a travesty. Here we have the Government fathering a measure which contains a provision of which they distinctly disapprove, and yet they dare not propose its elimination, though they invite the Senate generally to reject it. I say that the Government are evading their responsibilities; and to call that responsible government as a mere travesty. The AttorneyGeneral's speech bears out in full every statement I have made. Were it not that it would unduly prolong my remarks. I should read what the Attorney-General said1 on this particular aspect of the case; and if the Attorney-General reads his remarks over again he will admit, as he is always ready to do under similar circumstances, that I have fairly stated the case. **Senator Smith** took it upon himself to threaten that the Senate would have to accept the responsibility of losing the Bill if we attempted to amend it. He certainly said that no drastic amendments would be accepted by another place - that the Government would, rather than accept such amendments, " chuck " ' the measure under the table. If that be so, let me invite **Senator Smith,** as an ardent supporter of the Government, to induce the Government to put the Bill under the table if they dare. When this Bill was before another place, with another Government in power, the present Prime Minister said that it was not the property of any particular Government - that it was the property of the people and their representatives, and that no Government could say what would be its fate. I agree with that statement ; and it does not lie in the mouth of **Senator Smith** to say what will be the fate of the measure if we attempt to amend it. The Bill, having come before the Senate, is now the property of the Senate, and it is our undoubted and inherent right to amend it in any direction we think proper in the interests of the people and the States we represent. For my part, even if the threat of **Senator Smith** has any justification. I would rather see the Bill "chucked" under the table than have it placed on the statute-book in its present form. I believe that now when we are attempting to deal with the subject of industrial arbitration, we should make our legislation as effective as possible. We should do all we possibly can to make it a good and useful Bill, which will provide for every possible case. I should like to remark - and I think the Attorney-General will agree with me - that in the industrial world to-day compulsory arbitration is on its trial. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- That is what I said. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- The system has been tried only in a few countries of the civilized world, and in a few States of the Commonwealth, and the period during which it has been working is too short to enable us . to form an absolute judgment as to its full effects. The system being on its trial, I contend that it is the duty of this Parliament to deal with it in such a spirit as will enable us to pass a measure that will be really effective. Let me remind the Senate that in this Bill we are not merely legislating for the Commonwealth; we are doing something more. Under these southern skies new communities built up under the British flag, are leading the way in progressive legislation. In passing an Arbitration' Bill we have the eyes of the civilized world upon us, and other nations will be largely guided in their industrial legislation in the future by the success or otherwise of the Bill we pass. Therefore, I think there is an enormous responsibility resting on us in taking the lead in this matter, and1 we should not if we can possibly avoid it, allow an imperfect measure to receive the stamp of legislative approval in the Commonwealth. For that reason it is more important that in this attempt we should not be so anxious to save time, or be actuated by any other motive than the desire to make the measure as perfect as possible. I hold that belief strongly, and I think the Attorney-General will agree with me that we are doing something more than legislating for the Commonwealth. We are, as I say, taking the lead with a progressive measure which will guide the civilized world in the near future. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- For that reason, we ought to be careful. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- We should be exceedingly careful not to do anything which might nullify the possible good effects of the measure. The Bill should be so framed that it might fairly be expected to prove in actual practice that it will be as beneficent to the general well-being as its most ardent advocates believe. For the reasons which I have briefly enumerated, I hold that it is right for the Senate to amend the Bill in any direction we deem desirable. With regard to the threat that the other House or the Government may deal in a very scurvy manner with the Senate - that they mayrefuse to consider any amendments we may make- {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- I do not think they will do that. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- That is the threat held out, especially by **Senator Smith.** {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- I did not understand **Senator Smith** to say that. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- The honorable senator did say so. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- The other Chamber will, I am sure, give full consideration to all our amendments. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- **Senator Smith** said plainly that if we made any drastic alterations the Bill would be thrown under the table. Not by way of a threat, but by way of a reply to the veiled threat held out by the Attorney-General that the Bill might wreck a Parliament, I say that in the last resort the Senate has an exceedingly effective means to deal with a recalcitrant Government or lower House which refuses to give full consideration to its amendments. I ask the Attorney-General, what sort of a fix the present Government would find themselves in if they insultingly refused to consider our amendments - to have anything further to do with the Bill, because we had amended it - if we in retaliation refused, as we have the power to refuse if we see fit, to pass the Government Estimates ? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- The honorable senator does not call that a threat, I suppose ? {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- No, I do not; it is in reply to a threat. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- It is a " Your money or your life " sort ofbusi ness ; and even **Senator Playford** smiles. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I speak in reply to veiled threats which have been held out. I do not suppose that the other House would deal in such a way with any amendments, but still **Senator Smith** has made the suggestion. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- **Senator Smith** is not the Government. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- **Senator Smith** is a supporter of the Government, and may possibly be the unofficial voice of the Government. It might not suit the Government to make such a statement straight out, and they may have got **Senator Smith** as an unofficial senator to give an unofficial intimation. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- **Senator Smith** is a useful "peg " on which to hang an attack. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I never require a " peg " on which to hang an attack. If I wanted to attack **Senator Pulsford,** the AttorneyGeneral, or the Government, I should not go round looking for a " peg " - I should make the attack straight away. I regard **Senator Smith** as a personal friend of my own, and any remarks I make about him are purely political. I may say that when I first became' acquainted with **Senator Smith,** I very shortly began to think he was a really good democrat, disguised as a conservative, but after his speech the other night, I begin to think that he is a first-class conservative disguised with a thin veneer of democracy. It is admitted on all hands that there is need of a measure of the kind before us - that the industrial strife which has been going on for generations calls for some other remedy than disastrous strikes and lock-outs. It is universally conceded that some method should be devised to protect the public from the disastrous consequences of industrial strife. We have seen in this country - and have heard of similar occurrences in other countries' - the terrible results of strikes, both to employers and employed. Millions of pounds have been lost to the employers, owing to the cessation of work, and millions of pounds have also been lost in wages to the employes, and those dependent on them. Their wives and little children have had to go hungry, and the employers have often relied upon the cries of the little ones' for the bread which their parents were unable to supply, in order to force the employes to accept the terms offered. Untold suffering and loss have been inflicted upon the whole community by that sort of industrial strife. People who were in no way connected with the strike have been just as seriously affected by its results. When one industry stops it involves other industries in its temporary ruin. The workmen in several other industries are thrown out of employment. All the industries indirectly affected, perhaps, suffer as great a loss as the industries directly affected. The whole community is so much the poorer by the cessation of the wealth-producing power of the industries for the time being. But that is not the worst thing which occurs through in- dustrial strife. It engenders an intensely bitter feeling between the employers and the employes, and general hostility between employers as a whole and employes as a whole. Anything which will tend to minimize or do away with that intense bitterness of feeling between fellow citizens, between people whose interests under any proper system should be common, ought to be welcomed by the Senate. These are only a few of the many and great evils attendant upon industrial strife. And any attempt to provide a remedy ought to be welcomed by everybody who has at heart the interests of the employers on the one side, and the employes on the other side, as well as the interests of the general community. I do not view this as a Bill which is in the interests of employers or employes, but as a Bill which is in the interests of the general public, and therefore also in the interests of employers and employes. The community has an absolute right to protect itself from the evil consequences which may result from industrial disputes. Frequently during this debate we have been told that the Bill is an unwarrantable infringement of private liberty, that an employer must have the absolute right to say who shall or shall' not work for him, and that no such infringement of individual liberty should be attempted by any Government or Parliament. Now every law, no matter what it is, is an infringement of individual liberty. I challenge any honorable senator to mention a single Act in this or any other civilized country which is not an infringement of individual liberty. Therefore the contention that because the Bill infringes individual liberty it is a bad one falls to the ground. In all organized communities there must be an interference with individual liberty, because that is the foundation of all government. If every man had the fullest liberty to do what he liked, when he liked, and where he liked, then good- bye to all government. In a civilized state every citizen must have given up a certain" amount of his individual liberty in the interests of the general community in order to establish that government. When honorable senators talk about an interference with individual liberty, they are unconsciously advocating absolute individual liberty. If **Senator Pulsford** or any other honorable senator on that side were called an anarchist he would feel highly insulted. If their statements are analyzed it will be found that that is exactly what they are advocating here. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Does the honorable senator believe in the sentiments of **Mr. Tom** Mann? {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I am only responsible for the sentiments I express.' I have expressed my views as freely as any other honorable senator has done, and therefore **Senator Walker** knows them just as well as any one does. I do not think that **Mr. Mann** or any other person is right on all occasions. I refuse to be drawn aside by an inane interjection about what **Mr. Mann** did or did not say. Every law, I repeat, interferes with individual liberty. It is an offence for a man to be drunk in the streets. It is also an offence to sell whisky without a licence. Every one who is in favour of government at all must agree that it is necessary to" give up a certain amount of individual liberty. All we ask for in this Bill is that a small modicum of individual liberty which is enjoyed by the employers on the one side and the employes on the other, shall be given up for the good of the general community. An enormous sacrifice is demanded of trade unionists when they are asked to give up the weapon of which they have hitherto had the free use in order to fight for their rights. It is admitted in Great Britain by the highest authorities, and it is acknowledged in Australia that the right to strike and the existence of trade unions have effected more good for the working people of Great Britain and Australia than any other combination of circumstances, or any other efforts made in that direction. When we ask trade' unionists to give up the weapon by which they have accomplished so much, and by which they might accomplish much more; when we ask them to give up their individual liberty in that direction we should be careful to see that the Bill affords them an ample safeguard and protection against the injustice which might be forced upon them through the lack of that weapon. In doing so, we think we are only adopting a reasonable course. I do not uphold strikes. I think that a strike is a barbarous method" of accomplishing the end in view, but until some other weapon is invented, or some tribunal is created, by which the same result can be obtained, it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, when this weapon is withdrawn from the .trade unionists we should be careful to see that they receive ample compensation for the sacrifice we ask them to make. What disability does the Bill propose to inflict upon employers? 6284' *Conciliation and.* [SENATE.] *Arbitration Bill.* It does not propose to inflict upon them any disability, which dozens of laws I could name have very often imposed upon other persons. It is largely designed In their interests. We are told that untold loss and suffering are inflicted upon them because of the uncertainty of the labour conditions, because their industry is likely to be disjointed at any time by a strike, because they have no safeguard that the conditions of labour will remain the same from day to day. What do we offer them in return ? We offer them absolute security in the form of a decision by a judicial tribunal, which I believe can be so constituted as to command the entire confidence of every person in the community. We are also told that the employers will suffer inordinate hardship if they are compelled to give preference to unionists. At a later stage I intend to deal more fully with that subject, but here I shall merely say that it is only insisted upon when every condition is equal. What we ask, and what the Bill says, is that "all other things being equal " preference may be granted. If, for instance, I were as good a workman as **Senator Higgs,** but not a unionist, and he were a unionist, he would have a right to get a little preference over me. Where is there any hardship to the employer in that ? {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- But the employer gets the same right also. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- Certainly. I intend to make one or two references to that matter when I come to discuss it more fully. I agree entirely with **Senator Gould** that no section of the community should be shut out from the benefits of the law. No class in the community, except the Public Service, was shut out from the effects of this Bill as it was introduced by the Deakin Government. There is something radically wrong in a law which does not apply to every individual in the community. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Leave the Bill open, and then all will come in if it is constitutional. I shall vote to leave the Bill open. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- To every class in the community ? {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- I shall not vote to specifically include or exclude any one. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I am glad to get that admission from the honorable senator, and I shall pin him down to it. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- The honorable sen ator need not pin me down to anything ; my word will bind me. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I hope so. I feel that an amendment from this side which has the assured support of Senators Gould and Mulcahy will be carried by a large majority. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- The honorable senator might indicate what the amendment is. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- It is in the direction of allowing every person in the community to enjoy the benefits of the Act. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Will the honorable senator agree to strike out the provision including railway servants, for that is what **Senator Mulcahy** is driving at ? {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I shall deal with that matter when it is reached. I have not indicated any particular amendment; I am only speaking of the general principle, that no person should be exempt from the provisions of a law. It is a pernicious act to exempt one section of the people from a law. The law should be there for every citizen. It is the intention of the party with which I am associated to make the scope of this Bill as wide aspossible, so that every section of the community - so far as we are not limited by the Constitution under which we exist - shall enjoy the benefits which the Bill confers. Amendments will be moved such as we deem necessary to attain that end. We were intrusted with certain rights and certain powers by the Constitution. We ought to use those powers for the benefit of the people, and we should be false to our trust if we failed to utilize them. There should be no aristocracy of labour. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Except so far as preference is concerned. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I will argue that question with the honorable senator at a later stage. No section of employers or employes should be excluded from the benefits of this measure. We have been told by the highest legal authorities that the word " industrial," as used in the Constitution, has a very important meaning. We are assured that it certainly limits our right to deal with the employes of the States to those who are engaged in industrial occupation such as railways, dock-yards - if we had Government dock-yards - railway work-shops, and other places of the kind. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- And not to railway clerks and accountants? {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- Personally, I think that such persons are engaged in " industrial " occupations. But I do not intend to split straws about a matter of legal interpretation. The interpretation of what constitutes an " industrial " employment must be left to the High Court. We have been told that if we do not expressly exclude the public servants from the scope of the Bill, they will be exempt under the general law. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- If they are included under the terms of the Constitution, we do not need to include them expressly under this Bill. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- It is a pity they were ever included. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I am inclined to agree that they should neither have been included nor excluded. No limitation should have been imposed. The AttorneyGeneral has invited us to exclude the States servants on the ground that the Senate is in an especial degree a States' House. But I would point out that we are the representatives of the whole of the people of Australia, chosen on the widest franchise - a franchise that means in our case a sort of national referendum in every State. We have, to safeguard the rights of the people of the States.- Some people would interpret " States rights " to mean the views of any particular State Government for the time being. I do not share that opinion. I hold that my duty as a senator representing the State to which I belong is to safeguard the welfare of the whole of the people of that State, rather than to accommodate myself to the views of the few people who may happen to be in power for the time being. Every senator is quite as competent to know the particular interests of the State which he represents, as is any State Government, or collection of individuals in a State. When I am told that to include the States servants is to infringe States rights, I reply that States rights have nothing at all to do with the question. In every State the Governments are trying to find means by which they can free themselves from their responsibilities in dealing with their public servants. In Victoria the railways have been handed over to the control of Railways Commissioners, who are supposed to *bo.* absolutely free from political influence. In Queensland a Public Service Board was established to deal with the entire Public Service, in order - as was said by the people who adopted the system - to remove the Public Service from political influence. The Government were absolutely bound by the. decision of that Public Service Board, which could1 increase or decrease wages just as it pleased. Parliament was bound to vote the salaries which the board chose to fix. Therefore, the cry that we should be taxing the States by establishing this tribunal, is so much bunkum, and I do not propose to be influenced by it in the slightest degree. What is proposed in this Bill? We are proposing to establish a tribunal which I hope will be so composed as to possess the confidence of the entire Commonwealth. That tribunal will hold the scales of justice evenly between the States and their servants. It will endeavour to do the fair thing in regard to every case which comes before it. We are sometimes told that the States would refuse to obey the decisions of the Court. I should like to see them try it. The States Governments have to obey the verdicts of ihe Courts already. Have no verdicts ever been recorded against States Governments before? There have been scores and hundreds of cases. Has no verdict ever been recorded against the Commonwealth? I think so. Has the Commonwealth ever refused to obey the decision of the Court? Do the people who make this statement think that the States are going to defy the law, or *10* do something which would absolutely set at nought the decisions of a judicial tribunal ? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- What course does the honorable senator think would be taken if the Parliament of a State refused to vote the money which was necessary to pay increased salaries to public servants ? {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- The High Court has power to deal with recalcitrant litigants who refuse to obey its decisions. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- They could not put the Parliament in .gaol. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- They could appoint a receiver who would take the taxes. There are hundreds of different ways in which the Court could enforce its verdict. But it is preposterous to suppose that any Parliament would defy the law or would resist tha decrees of the Courts. I am satisfied that the States would loyally abide by the decisions of this Court, and I believe that the States Parliaments in most instances would be very glad to be relieved of the responsibility of dealing with their employes in matters of this kind, and would rejoice that the ultimate decision was left to an independent tribunal. After the railways have been handed over to independent commissioners, and public service boards have been appointed, it is idle to say that to give an independent tribunal power to deal with States servants, in case of a dispute between them and their Governments, would be an infringement of States rights. It must also be remembered that a dispute between a State and its servants might overflow into another State. If that happened the dispute would immediately become a Commonwealth matter. It is our duty as a Commonwealth Parliament to set to work to provide against such possibilities. What sort of national disaster would occur if our industries were capsized, or subject to sudden cessation through- a great dispute between a State and its servants? *'l'obe* the railway strike which occurred in Victoria some time ago. The amount of loss and bitterness and hatred that would accrue from a struggle of that kind, if extended into another State, would be almost inconceivable. Yet we a e asked to believe that the Commonwealth is powerless to legislate for such cases. There are only one or two Other points that I wish to make before resuming my seat. One of them has relation to the question of preference to unionists, about which there has been a good deal of misunderstanding and bickering and bitterness.i This feeling has mainly arisen because of a misconception, and, as **Senator Pearce** has pointed out, " preference to unionists " is a wrong term. What we require is really protection for unionists. Unless there is protection for unionists, the benefits proposed to be conferred by a measure of this kind will be useless. It must be remembered that, in order that cases may be referred to the Court, there must be organizations. There must 02 in thom organizations persons who take a prominent part in cases which are worked up for submission to the Court. There are always certain prominent men connected with trade unions who take a leading part in their proceedings. Suppose a case affecting a grtain industry was taken before the Court. Suppose that an award was made in favour of the union. If there is no preference provision, undoubtedly the prominent men would be boycotted and victimized. Let me give an instance which came under my own personal observation of the way in which prominent unionists are treated by employers. I know that there are other honorable senators who have personal knowledge of such cases. On Charters Towers, following the general election, in 1903, for the State Parliament, when two labour representatives were returned for that great gold-field, every man who had taken a prominent part, in unionism or in labour politics speedily became a marked man with all the employers of labour. It did not matter how many mouths were dependent upon him, if he were objectionable from! the political or union stand-point, he was immediately victimized. It would, perhaps, have been no great hardship for a man to be dismissed from one mine, but when the mineowners all followed the same course, and it became absolutely hopeless for a man dismissed from one mine to get employment in another, the result was that he had to leave his wife and family at Charters Towers and roam this Commonwealth from one end to the other in search of employment. I believe that as many as 700 or 800 cases of victimizing in that way occurred. We used to make a noise about it. We used to get on public platforms, and denounce those who were guilty of it. Those who had taken this action protested that there was no such thing as victimizing going on, that the men who were dismissed from employment were "sacked" in the ordinary course of business, and that their politics and their unionism had nothing to do with their dismissal. A case, however, occurred by which one man was able to sheet home the charge of victimizing .to these people. A man was working in a mine in which he held a considerable number of shares. At a meeting of the *directors* of the mine, one of the directors, looking over the pay-sheet, said to the manager, "I see you have got such and such a man there ; why do you keep him; he is an agitator?" The manager said. " I do not know anything about his being an agitator. I have no fault to find with him. He suits me." The director then said, " You will have to sack that man," and the manager replied, " I shall not do anything of the kind. If- you want to sack him, you must sack him yourself." The director then said, "We will very soon do that." A resolution was passed at that meeting of the directors, and the man was " sacked ' ' accordingly. The man considered what steps he should take to obtain satisfaction for this gross outrage upon his liberty to work in a mine in which he was a large shareholder, and 'at- the same time to convict these people of the boycotting of which they were so guilty, but which they so strenuously denied. " He considered that the only thing for him to do was to compel" the employers to bring him before a Court, when he might get the opportunity of putting them in the witness-box, and of making them swear to the facts themselves. He took that course. He horsewhipped the director who had "sacked" him, and he was taken to Court. The directors were put into the witness-box, and they were made to swear to the facts themselves. The result was that the man got two months in gaol with hard labour. That is absolutely true. I was myself the man. That is the sort of thing we shall have if we do not provide in this measure for preference to unionists. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- We shall have to specifically include the honorable senator in the Bill. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- There is no necessity ; I can look after myself, but unfortunately there are many people who cannot do so. Although I was victimized on the occasion to which I have referred, that result has proved that no very permanent injury was inflicted on me, and I think 1 can say that the director who "sacked" me came off second best. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- Did he consider it a pleasant affair also? {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- What I have described is what will follow if we do not give preference to unionists. After men have taken all the trouble necessary to work up their organizations, provide funds to carry them on, and bring their disputes before the Court, they will undoubtedly be victimized if we do not provide for preference for unionists. Honorable senators may tell me that the Bill provides that no man shall be "sacked" merely because he is a trade unionist. Do honorable senators believe that any employer would ever be stupid enough to say that he had discharged a man for any such reason? A thousand and one excuses can be found for getting rid of a man besides the excuse that he is a trade unionist. Without preference to unionists, the result will be that any man who urges his fellow workers to bring a case before the Arbitration Court for the betterment of the conditions under which they live will be victimized. Is that to be the only reward which this Parliament will give to a man for self-sacrificing efforts on behalf of his fellow workmen? We are asking, only for a fair thing. Preference is asked for unionists only when all other things are equal, when the unionist workman is as good as any other, and when there are plenty of unionist workmen available for the work offering. Being convinced that we are asking only for a fair thing, it is our duty to do our utmost to give unionists this one small advantage in return for the sacrifice we are asking them to make in giving up their individual liberty, and the right to strike, which is the great weapon on which they have hitherto relied, to better their conditions and to enforce a fair deal for themselves. We have heard a great deal about the working of the Arbitration Act in New Zealand, and I should like to quote one or two extracts from the report of Judge Backhouse, who, in 1 901, was sent over from New South Wales as a Royal Commissioner to report on the working of the New Zealand Act. At page 9 of his report, dealing with this question of preference, Judge Backhouse says - >The Court had held that it had power to give preference of employment to members of unions, and its decision had been upheld by the Court of Appeal, when proceedings were taken to restrain it by prohibition ; but, to put the matter beyond all doubt, the claim to preference "is now included in industrial matters, as is also the claim bv an industrial union bf employers to preference of service from unemployed members of an industrial union of workers. Thus honorable senators will see that we are not asking for anything new. This is the basis of the New Zealand Act, and it applies all round. So long as union workers are available, they must give the preference in the use of their services to employers working under the award, as pointed out by Judge Backhouse. It is well known that organization is the whole basis of this Bill, as well as of the New Zealand and New South Wales Acts. There must be organization before an award of the Court can be secured. After men have gone to the trouble of forming their organizations and contributing to them for years, and after . they have given up their individual liberty and their right to strike, are we to give them nothing in return? Are the people who will not help us to submit industrial disputes to a peaceful method of settlement to reap the whole of the benefits of a verdict of the Arbitration Court, whilst unionists are only to reap the right to be victimized ? It is monstrous to suggest such a thing. It is palpably right that unionists, after they have gone to the trouble to enable such legislation to be effective, and have made the sacrifices necessary, should get some little advantage from the Bill which we are passing, in the interests of the general community, ro secure industrial peace. There are one or two minor principles contained in the Bill, to which I should like to refer briefly. **Senator Gray** and other honorable senators opposite have told us that if we pass this Bill it will frighten capital out of the country, that it will curtail enterprise, and prevent people from engaging in industries. At page 15 of his report, in dealing with the effect of the recommendations of the boards and of the awards of the Court on the investment of capital in and on the expansion of industries, Judge Backhouse says - Generally, I should say that my investigations showed that, with possibly one exception, industries have not been hampered by the provisions of the Act. To attempt to decide whether capital, under other conditions, would have been invested in particular industries is to undertake a task which has merely to be mentioned to show its impossibility. No doubt general statements were made that this abstension had been practised, but I found it more than difficult to get specific instances. Any cases which were mentioned, on investigation, hardly bore out the view put forward. For instance, I was told of the delay in the building of a shirt factory at Auckland j but the factory is now up and in full working order, and it was one of my pleasantest official sights when going over it to see the large number of healthy girls working under conditions which seemed almost perfect. This is the result of this awful arbitration legislation which honorable senators opposite would have us believe is going to be so disastrous to the industries and the people of Australia. These are the words of a Judge of a New South Wales Court, acting as a Royal Commissioner, and making an impartial inquiry into the operation of similar legislation in New Zealand. We have been told also that this measure will engender strife. We say that it will minimize strife, because it will ' render strife abortive. Judge Backhouse, in speaking on this phase of the question, says at pages 23 and 24 of his report - >I certainly saw none of that bitterness which is generally engendered by a strike, even on a small scale. I saw nothing to justify **Mr. Ewington's** statement. (Debate *Hansard,* New South Wales, page 5576) - " It does not conciliate, bm it exasperates, sets class against class, trade against trade, and it becomes an engine for assaults of big traders on little traders, and «n vested interests ; also on the freedom of employers and of nonunionist workmen." One might think that it was **Senator Gray** who had given utterance to these sentiments. We can well believe that any one of the honorable senators sitting behind the Government would repeat these words of **Mr.** Ewington's with the greatest unction. Judge Backhouse further says - >To read that, one would think that New Zealand was in a state of industrial strife, which would not only paralyze all advancement, but would bring about retrogression. I saw none of the illfeeling which has been painted in so strong colours. On the contrary, one of the things which struck me was the excellent relations which existed between employes and employers. I noticed this in the proceedings which I witnessed before a Conciliation Board, and in the Arbitration Court, There the contending parties, although they were fighting their very hardest, appeared to be on excellent terms. At the Denniston mine, after I had examined the manager, he, of his own accord, brought into his office **Mr. Foster,** the representative of the miners, and left him with me to give me his statement, and I could see that this was *no* mere courtesy to me, but was indicative of the cordial relations existing between them. **Mr. Frostick,** during the hearing of the case of the bootmakers, who have had, as I have said, too wide an experience of the Act, made these remarks - " Never, in the history of boot manufacturing in the colony, has there been such a good understanding between the employers and the workers as at present," and " Whatever else the Court of Arbitration has accomplished it assists in bringing about that excellent feeling referred to by **Mr. Cooper."** Judge Backhouse goes on to refer to the feeling between unionists and nonunionists, but there is .only one other quotation which I should like to make from his report, and I take that from the general summary which he gives at page 25. He says- - >Although I have gone fully into matters in which the Act appears to be defective, I wish it to be clearly and unmistakably known that the result of my observations is that the Act has, so far, notwithstanding its faults, been productive of good. I have emphasized what were pointed out to me as its weaknesses, in order that they may be avoided should similar legislation be enacted here. The Act has prevented strikes of any magnitude, and has, on the whole, brought about a better relation between employers and employes than would exist if there were no Act. It has enabled the increase of wages and the other conditions favorable to the workmen, which, under the circumstances of the colony, they are entitled to, to be settled without that friction and bitterness of feeling which otherwise might have existed ; it has enabled employers, for a time at least, to know with certainty the conditions of production, and, therefore, to make contracts with the knowledge that they would be able to fulfil them ; and, indirectly, it has tended to a more harmonious feeling among the people generally, which must have worked for the weal of the colony. A very large majority of the employers of labour whom I interviewed are in favour of *Conciliation and* [28 October; 1904.] *Arbitration Bill.* 6289 the principle of the Act. One only did I meet who said out and out, " I would rather repeal it and have a straight stand-up fight," while another was doubtful whether the present condition was better than the pre-existing. The first, in a letter, has since considerably modified his statement. Judge Backhouse shows that all the predictions made by honorable senators opposite as to the bad effects of such legislation, have not been justified by experience in. the State where a. compulsory Conciliation and Arbitration Bill has been the longest in operation. On the. contrary, the report shows that a reign of industrial peace, which is eminently desirable, has been established. All we ask for is industrial peace in the interests of workers, employers, and the community generally in this young . Commonwealth - that instead of the arbitrament of industrial war, there shall be a judicial tribunal to settle disputes. When honorable senators on both sides are agreed that some measure of the kind is necessary, we should vote for the second reading, in the reasonable hope that there will emerge a good and effective measure, which will be of incalculable advantage and an undoubted blessing to the whole Commonwealth. {: #subdebate-3-0-s1 .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator STORY:
South Australia *Arbitration Bill.* in the last generation, competent to carry out all branches of a particular industry, they are able to work in only one branch. (The building trade, with which I am connected, suffers much from shoddy work done by shoddy men - chiefly owing to the fact that employers desire cheap men. This causes me to be strongly in favour of the principle of preference to unionists - a principle which will be more fully dealt with at the Committee stage. This has always seemed to me the essence and kernel of the measure - the vital clause. Unless men are encouraged by preference to joinorganiza tions. the machinery required to carry out the Bill will be wanting, and unions will cease to exist. It seems to me that in this debate some time has been taken up by repetition, but it should be made clear to the opponents of preference to unionists, that it is absolutely necessary, if this Bill is to have any effect, to have strong organi zations on both sides, and the only wayto bring about that result is to encourage organization. **Senator, Gray** is opposed to preference to unionists. So far as I know, the honorable senator has the reputation of a conscientious, generous employer, who desires his men to have fair wages and good conditions, but the honorable senator is probably a member of an employers' association ? {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- No. {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator STORY: -- At any rate, any other employer, with equally generous inclinations, might be a member of an association affiliated with kindred associations, which, in congress, decided on a general reduction in wages. However much that employer might desire his men to have fair conditions, he must, in loyalty to his association, lower wages or lengthen hours. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- I should not do so. {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator STORY: -- A Bill of this kind will prevent an employer being placed in that position, and he would have the satisfaction of being able to continue the generous treatment which he had accorded to his men in the past. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- The honorable senator implies that I would reduce their wages according to the decision of the association. {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator STORY: -- If the majority of the association decided that the wages of the men should be reduced, the honorable senator, in loyalty to that body, would have either to reduce the wages of his own men, or to resign. I have been in exactly that position as an employer. Having been a trade unionist, I have always had a feeling of regard and respect for trade unions. I have felt that they were doing a good work in the community. My experience has been that, as a rule, a unionist is a better workman than a non-unionist. The best men get into the trade unions. A fear has been expressed that where there were ten unionists and 490 non-unionists, the former would get a preference. If a preference be given, where would any hardship come in? Since the unionists would be superior workmen, no hardship would be entailed upon an employer in having to employ them. He could employ men from among the 490 nonunionists at his leisure. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- Does not the honorable senator think that the employer does get the best men? Is it not in his interests to do so? {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator STORY: -- The employer gets the best men, whether unionists or nonunionists ; at least I always did. If I were asked for work by two men of equal capacity, one being a unionist and the other a non-unionist, I should prefer the unionist, because he is doing something to better the condition of not only himself, but all those engaged in his trade, and incidentally to benefit others outside his class. I do not suppose that any one here will dispute the proposition that high wages to the industrial class mean general prosperity to every other class in the community. It has been proved everywhere that every class is more prosperous when wages are high than when they are low. I wish now to refer to the attitude of **Senator Smith.** I hold with the last speaker that we should endeavour to make every measure as perfect as possible, even although it might result in its being dropped elsewhere. At the last Senate election in South Australia the three successful candidates travelled throughout the State advocating or supporting a Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, and particularly mentioning the inclusion of States servants and preference to unionists. It is only fair to assume that the electors, by their votes on that occasion, approved of the provisions including States servants and giving preference to unionists. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Was preference to unionists ever put as a direct issue in any State? {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator STORY: -- Certainly, it was in South Australia. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- It was not the subject of controversy then, though the inclusion of railway servants was. {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator STORY: -- I believe that it was referred to by the candidates in the election campaign last November. That, in my opinion, is a vital point of the Bill. The fact that it was introduced by the Government, and is supported by the Opposition, assures its second reading. In Committee. 1 shall have an opportunity of saying a little more in support of what I consider the vital point of this very important measure. {: #subdebate-3-0-s2 .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade -- I shall not delay the second reading of the Bill, which, I have no doubt, will1 be carried, I hope on the voices, for more than a few minutes. There are one or two matters to which I should like to refer. No one, I. think, can say that the debate has taken a longer time than the importance of the subject, and the varied questions of a controversial character, which are involved, have fairly demanded. The speeches have been,, as a whole, of a very informing character. They have served1 the purpose, at any rate, of ventilating a variety of ideas, and sifting a great deal of information, coming from all sides, on the matters with which we shall have to deal. Nor do I intend to occupy any time in referring, so far as I am able to gather from the tenor of the debate, to the comparatively few questions on which we shall be, on. either side, more or less at arm's length. But we would have been glad to get from honorable senators on the other side a little more information as to the amendments which they intend to propose, and the direction which they are to take.' {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Some of them are in print. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- There are one or two in print, but there is a remarkable paucity of amendments formulated, and a remarkable paucity of suggestions in the speeches. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- That is a remarkable complaint. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- My honorable friend need not suppose that I am making a complaint. With the most perfect plainness I have said what I am going to do, and that is to stick to the Bill as it is as far as I possibly can. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- I thought the honorable and learned senator invited the Senate to improve the Bill. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I shall listen to whatever considerations may be urged in respect of any suggested im- 10 1 2 provements. But I am bound to say that I have not yet heard any suggestion which, in my opinion, is necessary to the efficiency of the Bill, or is likely to improve or round it off. If honorable senators on this side of the Chamber were to be guided by what was said by the honorable senator, who is, I suppose, still the leader of the Opposition, this Bill would be landed in a chaos of ineffectiveness which I, for one,- should greatly deplore. The most direct suggestion we have had has been from my honorable friend **Senator Playford** in that genial rollicking speech in which he dealt so effectively with the necessity for a definition of Socialism, ' and declared that he throws overboard the provision in the Bill definingthe principle regarding preference to unionists, and with equal impartiality also theamendment of **Mr. Watson,** and goes back to the original Bill. He does so on the ground that the original measure was formulated by his Government, and, therefore, must be the best possible. Consistency could no further go. We all think our own swans the whitest, and my honorable friendthinks that the handiwork of his Government is not to be eclipsed. But do my honorable friends opposite intend to follow **Senator Playford's** lead ? I am consumed with curiosity on that point. Why do they not tell us? They are not 'game to do so. There is absolute silence in their ranks. My honorable friend **Senator Playford** did not get a cheer on that point. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- He did from me. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- One swallow does not make a summer. It is only fair that **Senator Playford** should know whether honorable senators opposite intend to support him. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Will the AttorneyGeneral support me ? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I will not. I intend to stick to the Bill. The Bill as my honorable friend's Government produced it, required editing. It has been edited, and is now a very fine production in certain respects within its limits. I shall support the Bill in its present form: I conceal nothing. **Senator Playford** conceals nothing. We wear our hearts upon our sleeves, and do not keep anything up our sleeves. I only desire reciprocity in this matter, but I see that I am not likely to get it. **Senator Playford** rather unnecessarily fell upon **Senator Smith** in respect to his remarks suggesting caution. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- He gave a warning. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- 1 do not wish to quibble about a word. I am willing to take it that his remarks were a warning. But the word " threat " has been used. If **Senator Smith's** observations are to be regarded as a threat there are equally good grounds for so interpreting the observation of **Senator Pearce,** who made a very interesting speech on the subject. And while I say that I should like to add that there was another speech to which I draw special attention. I allude to that of **Senator Turley.** A more thoughtful, moderate, and wise speech it has never been my lot to listen to, in dealing with such a complicated matter as this. **Senator Pearce** said that he would rather see this Bill go into the waste-paper basket than upon the statute-book in its present form. That is to say, if he ' cannot secure this Bill in such a form, as a majority of Parliament declare to be inimical to the best interests of the measure, he will have neither part nor lot in it, and would prefer to see it put in the waste-paper basket. I do not think that the word "threat" ought to be applied even to that remark. But it does amount to this that my honorable friend says, " If I can I will tear up this measure and cast it to the four winds if I do not get my way." What does **Senator Smith** say," or any other honorable senator on the same side ? He says, in a much milder form, " I wish to get my way, but I am not going to carry that to the extent of imperilling the Bill. I will do everything I can." He .did not* mean that the Senate should not exercise its legitimate function or abate one iota of its rights. We are to consider, first of all, the voice of the country, and, secondly, to consider the possibility at every stage of passing the measure into law. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- But **Senator Smith** said, "This Bill as it is or nothing." {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I take leave to differ from the honorable senator. My honorable friend's recollection is according to what he believes, but my recollection is in accordance with what I believe. I did not hear words of that kind, and I did not infer that from what **Senator Smith** said. Whilst I agree, as **Senator Playford** knows quite well, with every word the honorable senator said as to this Senate giving effect to its own opinion by amendment in Bills of any kind, I think, at the same time, that as a legislating Chamber it is our business to consider, as practical, sensible men, the possibility of a particular amendment being adopted or carried into effect. Legislation is a system of compromise ; politics is a system of compromise. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- We know that; but this is not the time to compromise. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I am coming to what my honorable friend says. No one is more permeated with constitutional ideas, in relation to parliamentary institutions, than **Senator Playford. His** long experience, to which **Senator Storyhas** alluded, is a warrant for that, apart from our own experience of him as a member of the Senate. My honorable friend says that this is not the time for compromise. I say that it is the time, though perhaps not to the same extent. I say that at every stage, as practical business men legislating for the country, we have to consider the possibility of passing the measure into law. My honorable friends opposite will understand that I do not suggest that everything should be considered. The whole of the members of the Senate do not go to the country every three years, as do honorable members in another place, and,therefore, we must pay some respect to the opinion of the country, as reflected in another place, though it may not be indicated by our own. *personnel.* {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Of course we must. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I say that at this stage we must give consideration to these things, though I agree with **Senator Playford** that the crucial moment will come when the Bill is returned to us with the final views of another place. We may then have to deal with it- by withdrawal, insistence, or in such other way as the wisdom and prudence of the Senate shall dictate. I agree with my honorable friend as to that, but I contend that we should not be oblivious of these considerations even at this stage, because when the other stage comes, if we forget these things now, if we are immoderate now - as I do not for a moment think we shall be - when the measure comes back to us at that critical stage to which I have referred, feeling will have been imported, the fighting instinct will have been aroused, and it may be more difficult to arrive at what might be called a *via media* then than it would be if we now prepared our lines and laid our plans with caution and with wisdom. I therefore say that **Senator Smith** said no more than it was his duty to say. We in this Chamber represent the people as much as do honorable members of another place, although under limitations which do not apply to them. But we do not come from the people as a whole in the same way. and to that limited extent, at least, we are very much in the position of that non-elective body, the House of Lords, when it stands perhaps for a session or two as an obstruction in the path of reforms and beneficial legislation, but after a general election yields to the voice of the people. No one will accuse me of anything like craven submission or abandonment of our powers. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- The honorable and learned senator did not say this when the Tariff was being discussed. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I did. and I but repeat it now. I say that we should always act upon, and assert our rights, and declare our opinions, but we should not forget that we are a practical legislating Chamber, and not a mere body of persons dragging their garments that they may be trodden upon. I wish to ask my honorable friends opposite another question. I desire to know who is the leader on the other side? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- **Senator McGregor.** {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I wish to know whether honorable senators opposite agree with **Senator McGregor** in his view that this Bill will be absolutely ineffective, unless the organizations are registered for the whole of Australia. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The leader is always a little bit ahead of the team. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: **- Senator Turley,** in the speech to which I have already referred, said that **Senator McGregor** gave the Senate to understand that it is onlv unions that are federated throughout Australia that can be registered under the Bill. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- The honorable senator did. **Senator McGregor** possesses an excellent but a very erratic memory, and he possesses also, when it suits him, a very extraordinary looseness of thought and language. The honorable senator interjected in reply to **Senator Turley's** remarks, " I did not say anything of the sort." I will just read what **Senator McGregor** really did say. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- The honorable and learned senator has got back to his old form as leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I am very glad to hear it. I propose to read what **Senator McGregor** actually did say, because I consider it highly important. Of course, as **Senator Pearce** has said, the leader is always a little bit ahead of the team, and **Senator McGregor** may be miles ahead of the party he leads, although honorable members opposite are ipretty far ahead' as it is, but this is what he said, and it is exactly as **Senator Turley** has stated1 - >Does any honorable senator here imagine that the Tanners' Association of Geelong can register under this Commonwealth Bill if it should become an Act? {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- Neither can they. **Senator Sir JOSIAH** SYMON.- Where are we? {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- Because there are not a hundred of them. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- How thin ! If this is the way the honorable senator proposes to get over the difficulty, it can scarcely reconcile his leadership on this question to **Senator Turley.** Let me read the next illustration the honorable senator gave - >Does any one imagine that a Timber-getters' Association in the backwoods of Queensland - That is unlimited as to numbers - could register under an Act of this description ? This great constitutional authority, who is such a long way ahead of his party, answers himself, and says - " Nothing of the kind." I say that undoubtedly it can, and that that is the purpose of the .Bill. The honorable senator proceeded - >So far as the control of the affairs of the different States is concerned, it can never be effected - That is, that registration can never be ef fected - until there is a complete registration of all those who are associated in the same occupation in the different States. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- I sav that still. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- The honorable senator is a long way ahead of his party, and a long way ahead of the Bill; and if that is the principle by which honorable members are to be guided in amending the measure, they will absolutely destroy it, and what is infinitely worse, destroy the whole system of trade organization throughout Australia. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- **Senator McGregor** is not half so far ahead of his party as the Attorney-General is of **Senator Walker.** Senrjtor **Sir JOSIAH** SYMON.- T.he leader of the Opposition, who has to guide his supporters through the mazes of the Committee stage- {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- This is very caustic, but is it the way to get the Bill through ? 6294 *Conciliation and* [SENATE.] *Arbitration Bill.* {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- Does **Senator Higgs** oppose the second reading of the Bill? **Senator McGregor** went on to say - >Honorable senators must see that if this measure were carried to-morrow there would have to be a complete re-organization and amalgamation of the different workers in each of the States. Can honorable senators not see the necessity for that? It is really what must come about before such legislation as this can have any effect. I think that the number prescribed under this Bill can register so long as conditions are complied with in regard to employers. The body then becomes an organization under the Bill, and effective for all the purposes of the Bill. The severest blow against the utility of the measure and its efficiency will have been struck by the leader of the Opposition if he has his way, and embodies these views in this measure. I do not invite the honorable senator to try to so embody his views, because, unlike him, I wish the measure to becomelaw and effective. But the honorable senator has " let the cat out of the bag " as to how it is he is so far ahead of his party. This is what it all means- - >No association will be registered under thisBill, as merely representing the workers in a small corner of Australia. That would be of no use, because they would never be able to come before the Court. I have shown what will happen, and how, ultimately - Then this is the goal - the industrial affairs of Australia will come under the charge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. If that were the object of the Bill, I, for. one, should not stand here to advocate it. The intention of the Constitution and of this measure - not merely my intention, or the intention of my friends opposite - is not that the control of industrial affairs in all parts of Australia shall be taken away from the States., and placed under the control of the Commonwealth, but only so far as concerns those disputes which extend beyond the boundaries of a State, and become a national menace. That is the principle of the measure. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- And it is exactly my position. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I am very glad to know that those propositions by the honorable senator are only, as might be said, " pretty Fanny's way " - they are only the method by which **Senator McGregor** expresses his agreement with what is the essential principle of the Bill. But it is a very unfortunate method, calculated to disturb the equanimity of his own friends; as it evidently did that of the opponents of the measure. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- We are not a bit disturbed ! {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I was merely seeking to vindicate **Senator Turley** from the emphatic contradiction of his leader, **Senator McGregor.** {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- Will the AttorneyGeneral tell us what benefit it would be to the tanners of Geelong to register under the conditions of which he speaks? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- What conditions? I am afraid the honorable senator does not appreciate what the Bill is. and I recommend him to carefully study it before we get into Committee, when I think he will find that any hundred employes, whatever they may be, may register under an organization. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- What would be the use of their registering? They could not effect anything for themselves. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- Do I understand the honorable senator to suggest that small, weak organizations of100 persons are not to be allowed to proceed under the Bill if they think fit? {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- The honorable and learned senator does not know what he is talking about. He is getting mixed. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- That is the usual retort of a man who, I will not say has no intelligence, because I believe the honorable senator has intelligence, but who possesses obstinacy in opinion. The honorable senator reminds me of the celebrated line, " Stiff in opinion, always in the wrong." But I leave the honorable senator to any explanation which he may be able to give to his friends, and I only beg him, before the Bill gets into Committee, to free his mind from all those extraordinary notions, and to apply the true principles of the Bill to the clauses as they come under consideration. I was glad to hear **Senator Turley's** views as *to* the desirability of liberalizing union rules, so as in every possible way to afford facilities for the introduction of members. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- Those facilities exist now. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- But **Senator Turley** showed that there had not been those facilities in the past. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- That is ancient history. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- It is very valuable ancient history as a guide. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- It is only a matter of the last few weeks. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- At any rate, **Senator Turley** pointed out, with uncommon moderation, the desirability of such a step, and with great wisdom commended it to tall trade unions. Undoubtedly it is one which will necessarily go a long way to commend the unions, whose good works and services have been exalted in the Senate, and as to which I' need say no more. These facilities would not only commend unions to greater favour all round, but, if I may be- permitted to say so, would strengthen them greatly. **Senator McGregor** referred to the fact that the Bill was intended to encourage organization. But what organization? It is organization for the purposes of the Bill. This is a matter to which I beg honorable senators to give consideration, and, if I am mistaken in view, to correct me, when I shall be the first to admit my error. This Bill is not, as has been assumed, for the encouragement and aggrandizement of trade unions ; the object is the encouragement of organizations brought into existence, not fur trade purposes, in the same sense as trade unions, or for political purposes, or anything of the kind, but for the purposes of this particular Bill, with a view to- secure the remedial benefits intended to be conferred by it. **Senator Turley** yesterday said that there was a limitation in the number pf organizations to be registered in each State, under schedule 2 of the Bill. But that refers to organizations of the same name. It is merely an importation into, the Bill of what is notorious in company law. The provision that there shall not be more than one organization of the same name is intended to prevent confusion. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- Look at clause 59. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- I shall explain the law to my honorable friend later on. I am exceedingly sorry that he should have referred to myself- in a way which certainly has not been confirmed by any of his own friends. It is to be regretted that an honorable senator is unable to approach the consideration of any Bill or apparently any subject, certainly a Bill as to the principle of which there is little or no controversy, without making personal aspersions, casting personal imputations, and attributing unworthy motives in circumstances which, I think, honorable senators will :agree did not warrant them. I pass by the little pleasantry that I was borrowing or trying to borrow, or filch glory from rr.y right honorable friend, **Mr. Kingston,** of whom I spoke, I think, as I felt, with the warmest admiration in relation to this matter. My honorable friend misrepresented me when he said of me - >With a view of inducing the Senate to vote for this Bill, he rather curiously cited the impossibility of establishing international arbitration for the settlement of international disputes. I did nothing of the kind. On the con.trary, I said that the success, small as it was, in international disputes, should be an encouragement to us to try to apply the principle, both compulsory and voluntary, in relation to industrial disputes. What " I said was - >If these efforts have been made - halting and incomplete it mav be, by reason of the distinction to which he has alluded - and if these efforts have proved successful, in a number of instances, which i .need not detain, the Senate to quote, in relation to international affairs, i think we may very fairly look hopefully to the possibility of applying them in relation to our own international industrial disputes I cited that not for the purpose of showing the impossibility of it, 'and inviting honorable senators to vote for or against the Bill, but for the purpose of .showing that to some extent even in international affairs the applicaion of the principle, though difficult, had been a success, and that we might seek to emulate that success in the much more easy sphere of industrial disputes. My honorable friend ought to take the trouble to verify the' quotations he makes before he founds upon them imputations such as are contained in this passage - i was surprised that, at the conclusion of bis address, he expected any one to vote for the second reading of the Bill, seeing that he regarded it as impossible to carry out its provisions. Where did I say that? I have said, on the contrary, that the Bill, as it is, will be effective. Honorable senators differ from me as to some of the details, but I never said what is here attributed to me. If I thought it was impossible' to carry out the provisions of the Bill I should be worthy of the severest censure for coming here and moving its second reading.. 'What I did say* was that in regard to railway disputes, I believed .that it would be inoperative because, as **Mr. Higgins** and **Mr. Deakin** . also thought, a railway dispute^ - we may be mistaken- - would not be likely to extend beyond the limits of a State. Then my honorable friend used these .words concerning me - >He was not very earnest in his desire that we should vote for it. 6296 *Conciliation and* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Arbitration Bill* How could the honorable senator say such a thing? He stands alone; he does not stand in front of his party in that respect, but a long way behind them. I value what other honorable senators have said on that subject. I attach infinitely more importance to their remarks than to the traducing spirit and traducing language of **Senator McGregor.** {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- Did not the honorable and learned senator oppose it in the Convention ? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- No; the Bill was never before the Convention. **Senator Givens** complimented me - in language for which I am grateful, but which is far beyond what I deserve for doing my duty - upon my enthusiasm. I am enthusiastic ; I have never ceased to believe in the principle of compulsory arbitration in reference to these disputes. **Senator McGregor** is not justified in making an imputation of that kind, and his inconsistency is disclosed in his speech. He forgets at the end of a speech what he said at the beginning. "Although he said at the beginning of his speech that I was not in earnest, that I considered it impossible to carry out the Bill, and did not want honorable senators to vote for its second reading, still he said, at the end - >I join heartily with the Attorney-General in wishing that this measure may soon be placed in a proper form upon the statute-book, and that it will be both effective and beneficial. I do not believe that the honorable senator really means what he says, but his words get into *Hansard;* they are quoted, as I have seen them quoted, in newspapers which may or may not be hostile to me. If there is one thing I value it is the good opinion of the Senate and all its members, including **Senator McGregor,** in respect of my earnestness on any matter I undertake to advocate here. I keenly feel these depreciatory remarks, riot in respect of the principles . I profess orthe advocacy I give, butin respect of the sincerity and worthiness of the motives which influence me. I feel that it is unnecessary to refer to other matters which have been dealt with. I hope that the second reading of the Bill willbe carried on the voices, and that in Committee we shall do our best, unmoved by threats, or, as far as may be, by undue apprehensions but giving just regard to what is practical and possible in legislation, and that we shall eventually succeed in framing a mea sure which will carry out the intention, not of myself or honorable senators on this side alone, but the great desire which influences us in common with my friends opposite, whose views, even where they differ from mine in matters of detail, I must sincerely respect. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In Committee:* Clause1 agreed to. Progress reported. Senate adjourned at 4.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 October 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1904/19041028_senate_2_23/>.