View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
30 November 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

APPROPRIATION BILL
QUESTION
- NAVAL DEFENCE
NEW HEBRIDES
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF HARVESTERS
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- FORTNIGHTLY PAYMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH WIRES: ADELAIDE
TRADE MARKS BILL
APPROPRIATION BILL
CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 6070

APPROPRIATION BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without request.

page 6070

QUESTION

NAVAL DEFENCE

Mr HIGGINS:
NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Minister of Defence whether he has any objection to lay on the table of the House, with a view to having it printed and circulated, the memorandum recently prepared by Captain Creswell on Naval Defence?

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I . shall discuss the matter with the Minister of Defence, who, I am sure, will be glad, if possible, to meet the views of honorable members.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I shouldlike to know whether, in the event of the report referred to being laid on the table, it will be accompanied by any comments made upon it by the expert advisers of the Commonwealth Government.

Mr EWING:

– I shall suggest to the Minister of Defence that all information that would be of advantage to honorable members, and that it. would be wise to place before them, should be made available.

page 6070

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a cablegram which appears in this, morning’s newspapers, which reads as follows: -

A strong assertion of the claims of the French to the New Hebrides is made by M. Gervais, who is the reporter to the Chamber of Deputies on the Committee of Foreign Affairs.

Referring to the New Hebrides, M. Cervais, in his report, remarks that “ considering the excellent relations between London and Paris, it was to be hoped that ourneighbours would be able to bring the Australian States to an equitable appreciation of our rights, in order to secure us a confirmation in the New Caledoninn archipelago of the situation due to us owing to our pecuniary sacrifices, and the moral and material efforts of our subjects, and because it is incontestable that the geographical facts of the New Hebrides constitute them a dependencyofa French colony.”

I wish to know whether,in view of the significance of the cable, the Prime Minister will impress upon the British authorities the importance of the New Hebrides

Islands to British and Australian trading interests, and the necessity that exists for preventing the control of those islands from passing into the hands of any foreign Power.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– It is indisputable that, so far as we are informed, the most excellent relations exist at the present time between our own nation and the French Republic. Of that we are happy to hear. But I am not aware that relations of the most intimate character would justify the sacrifice of established rights by either Power. The Imperial authorities are well aware, and have recently been reminded at length, of the strong views we hold upon this question. I am sure that they would not, in the name of amity, ask the French Republic to sacrifice its rights, and I am equally confident that the French Republic would not make any such request to us because our nations are united by the entente cordiale. On the contrary, we trust that the relationship which existsbetween Great Britain and France will lead to an early consideration of the reciprocal rights of each party, and result in a just settlement. In our view a just settlement cannot but be beneficial to Australia.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I should like to know whether the resolution recently passed by this House upon the subject of the New Hebrides has been transmitted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and whether an acknowledgment has been received ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Speaking from memory, I believe that our communication has been acknowledged, but that no expression of opinion has been forwarded.

page 6071

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF HARVESTERS

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– In reference to a reply given by me on Tuesday to a question asked by the honorable member for Southern Melbourne, with reference to the importation of harvesters, I have been furnished with a memorandum, which states that three or four words were inadvertently omitted from one of the sentences. The reply, which should have been given, states that the records of the last two years show that the heaviest importations of agricultural machinery, which includes harvesters, are in the months of November, December. January, and February. The words “of agricultural machinery, which includes harvesters,” were inadvertently omitted from the sentence. The House has already been informed - Hansard, page 5279 - that no separate record of the imports of harvesters was kept prior to 1st January, 1905. Hence the necessity for giving this reply in a general form.

page 6071

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

– In case my silence may be taken as consent, I desire, by way of personal explanation, to say that at the proper time, and at the proper place, I shall deal with the statements contained in the leading article published in this morning’s Argus. In an article which extends over nineteen inches, there are sixteen lies, five misleading statements, some half truths - which an eminent authority has declared to be worse than actual lies - one illogical conclusion, and one grammatical error. In this anaylsis, which has been somewhat hurriedly made, I have not taken into account the usual headline which precedes the leading article, “I am in the place where I am demanded of conscience to speak the truth,” &c.

page 6071

QUESTION

FORTNIGHTLY PAYMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Mr RONALD:
SOUTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer,” upon notice -

Can he give an estimate of the extra cost involved in carrying out a bi-monthly system of payment for the Commonwealth publicservants?
Has he made inquiries as to the working of this bi-monthy payment scheme on the Victorian Railways?
Is it a fact that thelower paid public servants to a man desire this change from monthly to bi-monthly payments?
Will he be prepared to consider any scheme of bi-monthly payment which may be submitted to him ?
Would not a fortnightly system of payments protect the public servants, in many cases, from the usurers and the Insolvency Court?
Willhe endeavour to adopt thebi-monthly system of payments?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

Not at the present time.
Yes.
Sufficient information has not yet been obtainedto enable a definitereply to be given.
Yes.
I have no evidence that would justify me in assuming that this would be the case.
The whole question is under consideration.

page 6072

QUESTION

TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH WIRES: ADELAIDE

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether he has taken any action in regard to placing underground telegraph and telephone wires in the principal streets of Adelaide?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

Action is being taken. The matter is being treated as one of urgent necessity.

page 6072

TRADE MARKS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 29th November, vide page 6023) :

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 73. (1.) No person shall -

falsely apply to any goods for the purpose of trade or sale; or

knowingly sell or expose for sale, or have in his possession for sale or for any purpose of trade or manufacture any goods to which there is falsely applied ; or

import into Australia any goods not produced in Australia to which there is applied a mark which is a distinctive device, design, symbol, or label registered by any individual Australian worker or association of Australian workers corporate or unincorporate for the purpose of indicating that articles to which it is applied are the exclusive production of the worker or of members of the association (and which mark is hereby declared to be a workers’ trade mark), or any mark substantially identical with a registered workers’ trade mark, or so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive.

The workers’ trade mark is falsely applied unless in truth -

the goods to which it is applied are exclusively the production of the worker or of members of the association ; or

the goods to which it is applied are in part but not exclusively the production of the worker or of members of the association, and the mark is applied in such manner as clearly to indicate that its application does not refer to, describe, or designate the parts of the goods not being the production of the worker or of members of the association ; and

the mark is applied to the goods (being goods produced in Australia) by the employer for whom they are produced, or, with the authority of the employer, by the worker or a member of the association registering the mark.

In this section - “ Association “ includes any number of associations acting together, and in such case the members of the “association” shall be the members of the associations which are acting together; “ Production “ means production, manufacture, workmanship, preparation, or product of labour; “ Produced “ has a meaning corresponding with” production.”

Penalty : Fifty pounds, in addition to any liability to forfeiture provided by law.

For a very long time, in fact, ever since the question of what we may fairly and properly call workers’ trade marks has been before the country, practically one side only has been presented to the public ; and I desire now, as briefly as , I can, to put forward the views that have impressed themselves upon the Government, and have led them to believe that the proposals now made by them are justifiable, and ought to be adopted. Although the views that have been presented in some quarters in opposition to our ideas have been scarcely due to ignorance, I believe that in many instances they have been due to misconception - misconception not only as to the tenor of the proposals placed before the House, but misconception also as to the history of the subject and the way in which it has been dealt with in a far larger community than ours, and one in which mercantile interests of huge proportions are involved.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Is the AttorneyGeneral referring to the United States?

Mr ISAACS:

– Yes. I should like, in the first place, to read the clause, which presents no difference in principle or substance from the series of amendments for which it has been substituted. I have, I believe, in the clause now before us put into more concise form the series of amendments which were issued under date 15th September. Those amendments related both to union trade marks, and to individual workers’ trade marks, under the combined heading of “ workers’ trade mark.” I shall read the clause, because I believe that the language into which I have put these proposals correctly represents what those in favour of them have always maintained is the root principle of the proposed legislation, that is to say, the prevention of fraud. I shall endeavour to the best of my ability, to put before the Committee the facts and circumstances which I think justify the proposal. I shall also endeavour - fairly, I hope - to examine some of the objections that have been raised very often and very ably, if I may presume to say so, by several honorable. members. The proposed clause 73 reads in this way -

No person shall -
1. falsely apply to any goods for the purpose of trade or sale ; or
2. knowingly sell or expose for sale, or have in his possession for sale or for any purpose of trade or manufacture any goods to which there is falsely applied ; or
3. import into Australia any goods not produced in Australia to which there is applied a mark which is a distinctive device, design, symbol, or label registered by any individual Australian worker or association of Australian workers corporate or unincorporate for the purpose of indicating that articles to which it is applied are the exclusive production of the worker or of members of the association (and which mark is hereby declared to be a workers’ trade mark), or any mark substantially identical with a registered workers’ trade mark, or so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive.

So far, there is a prohibition against false application. Then follows a definition of what false application means -

The workers’ trade mark is falsely applied unless in truth -

the goods to which it is applied are exclusively the production of the worker or of members of the association ; or

the goods to which it is applied are in part but not exclusively the production of the worker or of members of the association, and the mark is applied in such manner as clearly to indicate that its application does not refer to, describe; or designate the parts of the goods not being the production of the worker or of members of the association ; and

the mark is applied to the goods (being goods produced in Australia) by the employer for whom they are produced, or, with the authority of the employer, by the worker or a member of the association registering the mark.

– Yes, it is the official organ of the United States. At page 1479 of this Bulletin, we find the following : -

Forty States and Territories have adopted laws allowing trade unions, federations, and other labour organizations to adopt labels or trade marks, to be used to designate the products of the labour of their members, and prohibiting the counterfeiting or the use of such labels or trade marks by unauthorized persons.

The names of the States and territories are given in alphabetical order; but I propose to put them before the Committee in the order in which I have secured them from another source, and to show the population of each Statein which such a law as this has been adopted. The following table gives the names of the various States which have adopted union label laws, and their population in 1900 - the latest statistics that I have been able to secure -

Thus a vast proportion of the people of the United States have united in passing such a law. As Legislature after Legislature - Legislatures that are not controlled by the workers - have taken this action, should we not reasonably consider whether there is not something of a moral claim beneath all this? As many objurgations have been addressed to me in respect of my action in this connexion, I should like to remind honorable members, as I did to a certain extent a few minutes ago, that the original of this proposal emanated from the Senate. The Watson Government introduced the original Trade Marks Bill, and as many honorable members have correctly asserted, it then contained no provision for union labels.

Mr Liddell:

– They were then acting on their own responsibility.

Mr Watson:

– We acce’pted it as drafted by the first Deakin Government.

Mr Deakin:

– The Bill as introduced by the Watson Government was drawn by the first Deakin Government.

Mr ISAACS:

– That is an important point. The Watson Government were only a short time in office, and had not very long to consider the matter. Whilst the Bill was before the Senate, what took place ? It was read a first time at the instance of Senator McGregor, a member of the Watson Government, on 14th July, 1904. It. was read a second time on the 27 th July, 1904, and on 10th August of that year, while the Watson Government were in office, the part relating to trade union marks was introduced as an amendment by Senator Pearce. On the following clay, the first clause in that part was agreed to without a division. The remaining; clauses” of the same part were proceeded with, and the next one was also agreed to without a division. Then Senator Drake moved the insertion of a clause forbidding trade unions to refuse to authorize a manufacturer or employer who adopted the rate of wages and the hours of employment fixed in reference to the trade of such unions to apply the union trade mark to his products. That clause was rejected by a majority of ten. The remaining clauses were agreed to without division, and the Bill was reported to the Senate with amendments. On the 18th August, the Reid Government came into power, but the Bill did not leave the Senate until 30th November, some three and a half months later. During that time it was under the charge of the Attorney-General in that Administration, Senator ‘Symon, but there was no intimation that his Government were opposed to these clauses. On one or two occasions, Senator Symon gave expression to his own individual opinion, . and I would call attention to what he said. On the 7th September, 1904 - the proceedings are reported on pages 4335 of Vol. XXI. of Hansard - the honorable gentleman moved that the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clauses 15, 72, and 93. Clause 72 was one of the trade union label provisions, and it was proposed to recommit it to enable Senator Pearce to move an amendment which would strengthen it.

Mr Higgins:

– That must have been part of a wicked bargain between the ReidMcLean Ministry and the Labour Party.

Mr ISAACS:

– I am merely stating the facts. Senator Pearce desired, as I read the debate, to amend the clause so that “ union “ would cover, not only an individual union, but an association of unions, and Senator Sir Josiah Symon moved the recommittal of the Bill to enable that to be done. That he was not hostile to the amendment is shown bv the fact that in Committee he suggested words which would better carry out Senator Pearce’s purpose, and, his suggestion having been accepted, the clause was amended accordingly. It is only fair to add that he said that he thought it a mistake to insert these provisions in the Bill. He remarked, speaking of Senator Pearce -

I am not saying one word adversely or otherwise with regard to the principle he lias in view, but I think that from his own stand-point it is worth consideration whether he should ask us to insert these provisions in a Bill relating to what is an entirely distinct matter - trade marks - and whether it would not be better to have a separate piece of legislation dealing with this particular subject.

Mr Watson:

– The present Opposition would be opposed to these provisions even if they were contained in a separate Bill.

Mr ISAACS:

– Senator Sir Josiah Symon expressed the opinion that he would be opposed to them, even if they were embodied in a separate measure. I do not think that he left himself open to misunderstanding on that point. But he said - T wish honorable members to remember these words when the constitutional question is raised -

I know that in America - and that is the pattern which mv honorable friend has followed - some enactments for this purpose have been passed : but it is noticeable that these are not Federal enactments. Our Constitution enables us to deal with “ trade marks,” and it is a moot question as to what is meant by that term.

There is there no expression of the opinion that it is outside the cowers of this Parliament to enact this legislation. He continued -

I am aware that the question was raised and debated here, and has been left to the determination of the High Court.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon then put it to Senator Pearce whether it was worth while. to deal with the subject in this Bill, instead of in a separate measure. He said -

I merely throw that out as a suggestion, but if he desires to retain the clauses, the words which I have suggested will meet his view, instead of the word “ association.”

The case was on behalf of the Union Hatmakers’ Association for an injunction against the defendants to restrain them from using a counterfeit Trade Mark and Label. On page 643, the Court asks - Why should the specific personal element of ownership of merchandise at the time it is put upon the market be deemed important?

Then the Court proceeded to say -

The public object sought in the protection of trade marks is to bring upon the market a better class of commodities, and the means for attaining that object is by securing to those who are instrumental in supplying the market, whatever reputation they gain by their efforts toward that end. The workman by whose handicraft the commodity is made is one of these instruments, just .is his employer, who furnishes the raw material, and owns and sells the finished product; and if the former is permitted by the owner to place upon the commodity a mark to indicate whose workmanship it is, and thereby commend his workmanship to other employers, this license from the owner should be deemed a right- against everybody else. His aptitude in his trade is his property, and if by a mark he can have it identified as his in the market, he may enhance *its saleable value, and thus secure the same sort of advantage as his employer by similar means. No reason exists why this advantage should not be protected by the Courts in the same manner and to the same extent as is the like advantage of the employer. The mere fact that one rather than the other of these persons has placed the product upon the market has no rational bearing upon the matter, for both alike have had the market in view in the efforts they have made, and through those efforts the market is supplied.

We understand from the bill that the members of the association represented by the complainant are connected together as journeymen hatters; that their skill in this trade, and their mutual assistance in profiting by its practice, form the motive and chief aim of- their association. The connexion is as clearly one for business purposes as is that of members in a partnership, or of stock-holders in a corporation. Although it is a comparatively novel species of relationship, it has become an established one, and therefore calls for the application of those general principles of law and equity which are applied to other species of business associations. According to these principles, we think a workman or a number of workmen engaged in the same branch of industry, and banded together for their mutual profit in the pursuit of their common vocation, may acquire a right of property in a trade mark designed to distinguish their workmanship from that of other persons, and that a trade mark so owned is entitled to the same protection as other trade marks.

In that case it was held that -

A number of workmen engaged in the same branch of industry may band together for their mutual profit, in the pursuit of their common industry, and acquire a right of property in a trade mark designed to distinguish their workmanship from that of other persons, and such trade mark is entitled to protection.

Then, in the case to which I previously referred - that of Hetterman v. Powers, in Kentucky, the Court, amongst other things, said -

In order to get the benefit of the superior reputation of cigars made by them, the appellees select and apply the label as a distinguishing brand or mark. And it would be strange if this thing of value, thiscertificate of good workmanship, and which makes the goods made by them sell, and thus increases demand for their work, be entitled to no protection, because those making the selection and application are not business men, engaged in selling cigars of their own. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer in that larger sense in which the word “ business “ has come to be used by statesmen and legislators.

Mr Kelly:

– Why does the AttorneyGeneral address all this to members in the Labour corner?

Mr ISAACS:

– Is there any use in addressing it to the honorable member?

Mr Kelly:

– Plenty ; because I am still open to conviction.

Mr ISAACS:

Mr ISAACS:

– I think that we have. In this memorandum the following statement is made: -

Another danger may crop up speedily. If the employer gives way to union pressure, and for the sake of the union label accepts union conditions in their entirety, those people in the community who object to the union label goods may refuse to buy them. In extreme cases pressure might also be brought to bear upon the unfortunate manufacturer through his trade creditors or his banker, if he accepts union conditions.

Mr McCOLL:

Mr McCOLL:

– Like the honorable member. I am only a worker. It seems to me that the trend of legislation in the Commonwealth is more and more to set individual against individual, class against class, and State against State. Five years ago, when the union was consummated, we fondly hoped that we were going to be one people. But although we have a political union, a union of heart and of feeling is further off than it was. Who are responsible for this state of affairs? The responsibility rests with those who control the affairs of the Commonwealth. It appears to suit some people to maintain this unsatisfactory position. I do not propose to say anything about the constitutional aspect of the situation. That is a matter which must be threshed out by the AttorneyGeneral and the other lawyers in the House. But we have some three or four leading barristers in the Government who are constitutional authorities, and I should like to hear them indorse the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General.

Mr.McCay. - He did not express a definite opinion.

Mr McCOLL:

– Quite so. We find that the position taken up to-day by several members of the Government is very different from that which they took up a year or two ago. We knowthat the Prime Minister preferred to leave office rather than agreeto the passing of a law which he considered would constitute an attack upon States rights. He was not prepared to allow the High Court to settle the question then at issue. Is he going to allow the High Court to settle the moot point now before us ? Surely there is no reason why we should attempt to deal with certain matters when our power to legislate in regard to them isin question. If the present policy of the Prime Minister isthat which he advocated a year or two ago, he should allow this legislation to stand over just as he urged should be done in regard to the application of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill to the railway employes of the States. Mr. Cussen, a leading member of the Victorian Bar, has expressed the following opinion : -

In my opinion, the Commonwealth Parliament has not power to legislate in respect of what I have called for shortness “ Union Labels.”

Because they do not indicatebywhat persons the articles were made, but only membership of a certain association.

Their use is not enjoyed as incidentto any business, and theright to use cannot be transferred with the transfer of a business.

There is no exclusive use, as many per sons not connected in business and unknown to each other have the rightto use, the right to use being acquired by becoming a member of an association, and being lost by ceasing to be a member.”

If the union label be such a good thing, how is it that all efforts to force it upon Canada during the last ten years have been in vain? How is it that it has not been adopted in England?

We realize that under the conditions of the United States a trade mark or label cannot be protected unless the party owns the proprietary right in the article covered by the label, transacts business with foreign nations, or with a tribe of Indians, and that makes it exceedingly difficult to overcome, so that we have not made any real, serious attempt to secure national legislation on that subject.

That statement of a representative workman., who desires to obtain Federal protection for these labels, is certainly very significant. It indicates that no serious attempt has been made to secure such protection, because it is recognised that the Constitution bars the way. Again., the Federal power has been assumed, whether rightly or not, under the trade and commerce clause, which deals with goods which pass from one State to another or to or from foreign countries. Therefore, the trade marks power has arisen in connexion with goods, and the label divorced from the goods would not be recognised under the Constitution. That strengthens my opinion that the High Court may hold the provisions now before us to be ultra vires of our power. At the same time, I admit that if the Attorney-General believes in the policy of placing such legislation as that now proposed upon our statute-book, he ought not to hesitate to go forward with it because there is a reasonable doubt as to whether our powers exend to sanctioning the use of trade-union labels. We ought not to commit constitutional suicide by refraining under a doubt with, regard to our powers. The AttorneyGeneral appears to have abandoned all pretence that a union label may be used as a registered trade mark, but he intends to penalize any man who uses a label in defiance of its ownership by some one else. He could not, however, adopt these penal clauses, and give them efficacy, unless the Bill had been so framed as to cover union labels. The point of our observations at a previous stage was, that the variations from the English Act, whether they had been made deliberately or otherwise, although making no express provision for union labels, were of such a character (hat union labels would be brought within the scope of the Bill. Emphasis has been given to this view by the fact that the clauses now before us assume that union labels are covered by the Bill, and merely provide that penalties shall be inflicted’ upon any persons who pirate such labels. It seems to me that it would have been far tetter if we had followed the Canadian and American precedents. In Canada, a Bill was introduced, for six or seven years in succession, dealing specially with union labels, because it was recognised that thev did not come within the description of trade marks. That measure was called “ A Bill to deal with Labour Union Labels.” They stated in clear and unpharisaical language what they meant to do. Clause 2 of that measure provided -

Every labour union which, before the passing of this Act, has adopted or used, or which hereafter adopts or uses a label to designate, make known, or distinguish any goods, wares, or merchandise, or other product of labour, as having been made, manufactured, produced, prepared, packed, handled, or put on sale by such labour union, or a member thereof, may register.

That is clear, straight, and genuine; and there can be no mistake as to what it meant ; whereas we are being asked to make provision in a much less direct form, by merely providing for the imposition of penalties upon those who improperly use such labels. The first series of amendments introduced by the Attorney-General were a little more definite upon this point, because they defined a union trade mark. But now all definitions have disappeared, and all we have is a workers’ trade mark. But, as if there were some unfortunate association attached to the word “ union,” it has now been dropped altogether, and the word “ association “ has been substituted for it.

Mr Watson:

– That was in order that it might not be confined to the unions.

Mr GLYNN:

– The Attorney-General professed to regard any interference with the proposed union label as an interference with trade, and he altogether ignored the association between “ trade “ and “ mark.” I should like to turn for a few minutes to the circumstances connected with the introduction of the union label into America, and the assumption that the conditions which might have justified its introduction there at a certain stage, exist here to an extent that will warrant us in following in the footsteps of the United States. I conceive that, at certain stages of the agitation between labour and capital, justification may have existed for resorting to the label as an expedient to tone down the oppressive action of capital. I mentioned, when speaking on’ this question before, that Acts had had to be passed in America to prevent capitalists from excluding non-union labour from their employment. Therefore, the union label, as a -weapon of offence, might have had a sort of quasi- justification that could not be urged to-day under the conditions of labour and capital in Australia. We have been told that” the union label was first introduced in 1874 in connexion with the cigar-making industry. In 1868, between 11,000 and 12,000 Chinese were landed on the Pacific Coast, and many of them found their way into the cigar-making industry of California. The result was that a great, many white people were thrown out of employment, and great distress resulted. The condition of affairs at that time has been referred to by’ Miss Helen Campbell, in her Prisoners of

Poverty. She shows that the most appalling results followed from the competition of Chinese labour with the white workers in the cigar industry. She tells us that, upon going round among the tenements of the cigar-workers, she found a family of seven, three of them being under ten years of age, and all the children being girls, in a room measuring 12 ft. by 14 ft. The tobacco lay in heaps in the room; the place was filthy dirty, and was pervaded by a rank smell ; and it was almost inconceivable that human life could exist under such conditions.

Mr Poynton:

– White girls may be found working for Afghans and Assyrians in Australia, in making up wearing apparel.

Mr GLYNN:

– I am now dealing with America, and I am saying that I could understand that there might have been some justification at certain stages for the introduction of the union label in connexion with labour agitations in America. Miss Campbell tells us -

Two of the children sat on the floor stripping leaves, and another on a small stool. A girl of twenty sat near them, and all alike had sores on lips and cheeks and on the hands. Children from five or six years up can be taught to strip, and thus add to the week’s income.

That was in. connexion with the cigarmakers’ strikes excited by the competition of coloured labour. Also, in connexion with this matter, President Roosevelt said -

I have visited these pest-holes personally^ and can assure you if smokers only saw how these cigars are made, we should not need any legislative action against this system.

Under these circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that the labour conditions became so bad that at times the men became desperate, and resorted to desperate expedients. For years there were continual struggles in the cigar trade. There was a very big strike in 1887, when 10,000 workers went out, and there was also a strike in 1883 in Cincinnati, which lasted for thirteen months. But, as the result of the better organization of labour, and the greater resulting power, strikes have gradually diminished. We are told by John Graham Brooks, one of the advocates of the union label, who admits some of the unfortunate results of its operation, that -

The attempt to understand the American trade union is incomparably more perplexing because of the racial effects. The constant pressure through immigration, of a great multitude of half-skilled labourers, representing far lower standards of life, and at the same time introduc- ing race antagonisms, has driven the trade union in this country to catch at every weapon of defence. The label is one of these weapons.

It was adopted under conditions that had a quasi-justification, in the case of the cigar-makers of California. Gradually its application was extended until it now applies to an immense number of industries in the different States. But I ask honorable members whether the conditions upon this side of the world are similar to those which obtain in America? Notwithstanding the list of Statutes quoted by the Attorney-General, have the workers there the same protection that is extended to them by Australian legislation? Certainly not. They have not a Federal Arbitration Act, the eight hours’ system has not been proclaimed by law-

Mr Watson:

– Neither has it been proclaimed by law in Australia, except in isolated instances.

Mr GLYNN:

– I thank the honorable member ‘for his interjection, because it might have been assumed that my statement implied that it had been proclaimed by law here. What I had in my mind was that the eight hours’ day was the rule in Australia.

Mr Conroy:

– The honorable and learned member was referring to the factory laws only, and in that connexion he was right.

Mr GLYNN:

– I was referring to the factory laws. However, I am not going to enter into a detailed exposition of our factory legislation. I am endeavouring to summarize from a dispassionate authority the impression which was left on his mind. As in one case, I have quoted extracts from the evidence of a labour representative in connexion with the Federal jurisdiction, I will now quote the opinion of ai friend of labour. This is the view of Mr. Maurice Low upon the conditions which obtain in the “United States -

Viewing the present condition of trades unionism in the United States in the light of the history of the movement in Great Britain, the men whose opinions are here presented believe that in the United States trades unionism has not yet advanced to the high level it now occupies in Great Britain.

That is the admission of a friend of labour as to the comparative ineffectiveness of the American Statutes to protect, and give the desired status to labour. I think it is not without some reason that I allege that the conditions which prevail in America are not reproduced here. We ought not, upon the theory of moral right, to ex periment in a direction, the development of which appears to have been somewhat unfortunate. At the same time, I wish to say that if the conditions in Australia were similar to those which obtained in California in -1874, I should hesitate before I opposed the adoption of the union label. Apart from the constitutionality of the matter - that is the word that we use in connexion with Federal and States powers - apart from the fact that the label does not come within the trade marks law, there is no broad opposition from the point of view of mere naked rights that can be urged against the adoption of this proposal. If it be true - as is stated in the evidence of some of the labour leaders in America - that their intention was not so much to perfect the conditions of manufacture as to strengthen unionism, and if their efforts in that direction have led to such extraordinary developments, I hold that with certain Qualifications rendered necessary bv the different conditions which obtain in the two countries, we may reasonably assume that similar results will be brought about here. It has been alleged that in America the use of the label leads to better workmanship, and improved conditions, from the point of view of the consumer. In this connexion, Mr. Brooks says -

It is hardly open to doubt that such action upon the part of municipalities would greatly strengthen the use of the label, at least until such time as the experiment was found to fail. Upon its theoretic side, the label stands, primarily, for “ better pay and for improved conditions of labour.”

Quoting from some of the leaflets circulated in America on behalf of the unions, for the purpose of inducing the consumers to purchase only union goods, the writer mentions that in some cases - for instance, in that of the Prospect Union, in Massachusetts - it does stand for excellence of workmanship. In this connexion he says -

The aim is, moreover, to make the label stand for excellence of workmanship, restoring something of the ideal of the craft guilds in their better =days. That this has not been done more generally with the label is clearly a weakness, especially if appeal is to be made to a larger purchasing public. It has been usual to claim for the label that it represented merely that the work was done under strictly union conditions. So far as these conditions - wages, hours, sanitations, &c. - stand for higher excellence (as in many cases they do) it may be claimed that the label also represents a better quality of work. Further than this very indefinite claim, the label cannot be said to stand for excellence of workmanship or of product. The cigarmakers usually admit this, although they have an organization of extraordinary completeness and efficiency. . . . In the case of the hatters it is even more difficult to trace any relation whatever between the label and quality or improved conditions. Many shops, conspicuous for the high quality of their product, wages, and entire circumstances under which the labourer works, have never used the label, nor is there any likelihood of their so doing.

Mir. Wilkinson. - If they are so few in* number as the honorable member’ has represented, what would that matter?

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I contend that they are comparatively few in number at present, and that, owing to that fact,they are all the more anxious to acquire powers which will enable them to increase their membership. The object of labour leaders all over the world is to force men into the unions. Tom Mann has openly stated that the objects of the unions in England and upon the Continent is to obtain power to force non-unionists into their organizations, by intimidation and coercion. It is for such a purpose that it is proposed to use the union label. The unions are aiming at the achievement of the highest form of political power.

Mr Spence:

Mr Tudor:

– The Reid Government, when in office, did not say that they were opposed to the union label.

Mr ROBINSON:

– I do not know what they said in this regard ; but I am aware of the views expressed by the two honorable gentlemen whom I have mentioned. I well remember the heroic periods indulged in by the Treasurer when, speaking in a hall not far from this House, he denounced any proposal to differentiate between working men. I am hopeful that he will yet unburden his soul of his reasons for supporting the proposals now before us. I am waiting to hear him unburden his mind in answer to the very strong protests that have reached him from Western Australia.

In dealing with a political measure of this kind, we are entitled to ask, first of all, what is its object? It is not my purpose to deal with the legal aspect of the question. I do not think that much is to be gained by doing so. The matter should be left in the hands of as few as possible, and with the Attorney-General on the one side, and the honorable and learned member for Angas and the honorable and learned member for Corinella on the other, I think that it will be sufficiently debated. I wish to ask why these proposals have been put before us - why we are asked to support what is known as the union label. I invite honorable members to cast back their minds to the events of last year, and to recollect the fierce struggle which took place in this House in connexion with various provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. Honorable members will remember that there was a fierce conflict over the proposal to grant preference to unionists. We who opposed it said that its object was to force men into unions, so that those organizations might be built up numerically and financially, and that as they were largely political machines, used by one section of the people, they should not be strengthened at the expense of all other sections. That was the objection winch” was frequently voiced, and with- the assistance of the present Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and the PostmasterGeneral, we succeeded in almost annihilating preference to unionists. I think honorable members will admit that it was practically killed.

Mr Tudor:

– I do, and said so at the time.

Mr ROBINSON:

– Honorable members will recollect that preference to the members of a union having political objects was also prohibited. A proposal in that direction was scotched by us, with the assistance of the members of the Ministry to whom I have referred. Being free agents, and not having, as far as I am aware, covetous eyes on the Treasury benches, they voted for amendments which had the effect of practically annihilating the principle. It was at that time that we heard so much of what is known as the caucus, and of the dangers of machine government. Reference was made to them in eloquent speeches in this House, and in still more brilliant utterances at Ballarat. We were told that my honorable friends of the

– I think that, my honorable friend, and others, know that the word “union,” in its ordinary sense, is totally inapplicable to a profession which is open to every one who passes the necessary examinations.. The Bulletin of the National Metal Trades Association, of October, 1903 - an American protectionist magazine, published in Cincinnati, Ohio, contains the following report from San Francisco: -

In the case of Michael Hallanan against William Storey, et al., members of the Journeymen Horseshoers’ Union, Local No. 25, Judge Beatty, of the United States Circuit Court, rendered judgment for the plaintiff this morning, continuing the injunction and restraining order on the grounds that Ohe boycott which the plaintiff alleged was being placed on his goods’ tended to materially injure his trade. Hallanan is the manufacturer of a patent rubber horseshoe pad, which he alleges was in common use in this city until the commencement of the boycott. He became involved in a dispute with the Horseshoers Union of New York over the placing of the union label on the output of his factory. On his refusal to comply with the demands of the union a boycott was declared against his goods, and all the horseshoers in this city are alleged to have refused to handle the rubber pads made in his factory. Hallanan made an application to the United States Circuit Court for an injunction and restraining order, which was granted by the court, and an order was, issued directing the defendants to appear in court to show cause why a permanent injunction should not be granted.

After hearing the evidence in the case, Judge Beatty ordered that the restraining order be continued, holding that the testimony had borne on the allegations of the plainiff, and that the boycott on the article which he manufacured and put on the market as a commodity was unlawful, inasmuch as it tended to injure his business.

These facts show that the union label is used to prevent men from buying and dealing in goods which are not manufactured by union workmen. The same magazine, iri its issue of August, 1904, contains this statement -

The latest demand of the union labellers appears in the form of a circular letter addressed to all publishers and engravers and printers of music,requesting them to put the union label on all music and all musical advertising matter. If this request is not complied with, an attempt will be made by the union musicians to inforce the demand, by instructing all union bands and’ orchestras to refuse, after a given time, to play any music which does not bear the union label.

That seems to me to be carrying the thing as far as it can be carried. Last year the Musicians’ Union of New South Wales wished to obtain preference for unionists from the New South Wales Arbitration Court, because Mr. J. C. Williamson was employing an unfortunate Victorian who was not a member of the union. In making that application they seem to have been acting on an idea borrowed from America.

Mr Thomas:

– Is a Victorian barrister allowed to plead in the New South Wales Courts?

Mr ROBINSON:

– Negotiations which will allow that to be clone are practically complete. American Industries, another newspaper whose statements should appeal to the staunch protectionists in the Government corner, becauseit sets itself to boost up local industries, contains a circular issued by the Bakery and Confectionery Workers’ International Union of America, in which the following appeal is made : -

We ask all to refuse to purchase any Bakery goods - that is, bread, crackers, cake, pies, or candies made in non-union shops or factories, and particularly those manufactured by the National Biscuit Company (the Trust).

Buy Crackers and Pretzels only when the box or package bears this label “ Union made goods.”

Buy bread only which bears this label, “ Union made.”

Buy Candies only when this label is on the pail, package, or box, “ Union made candies.”

When in hotels, or patronizing restaurants, boarding houses, or grocery stores, insist that the product of the National Biscuit Company (the Trust) shall be discontinued, and union-labelled goods exclusively purchased.

Not only are people urged to buy unionmade goods, but they are told to boycott goods which do not bear the union label. There are other instances which I might give, as. for example, the attempt which was made to boycott a well-known manufacturer because he advertised in newspapers which did not bear the union label, but I will not further illustrate what has been done by by the unions in that direction. Another use to which the label is put by unionists is as a means for keeping men “good” on their books. When this matter was being discussed some time ago, I quoted a case in which it was shown that one of the obligations of an employer was to see that his employes kept up their subscriptions. A similar case is mentioned in a magazine called The Op en Shop -

The following is a copy of a letter which was mailed to anemploye by one of Chicago’s prominent manufacturers : -

Chicago, III., Dec. 10, 1904.

Mr……… 4th Floor Factory. “ Dear Sir. , We are notified by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers that you are owing the Local Union dues, and that you are suspended, and we are requested to discharge you until you pay up. You cannot work with us unless you show a receipt from the union next Monday morning. Our doorkeeper will have instructions at that time not to permit you to go to work unless you can show him a receipt to that effect.”

Mr. Brooks, the author of a well known article on the subject, also shows how the union label is used for the purpose of keeping men “ good “ on the union books, and building up the funds of the unions. We must recollect that, in Victoria at least, the unions have political as well as industrial objects. The effect of the legalization of the union label will be that men will be forced to join unions whether they wish to do so or not. Thus the unions will be strengthened, both numerically and financially, and the political organizations of one section of the community will be built up at the expense of all other sections. The Attorney-General, in his exhaustive speech, endeavoured to make the question at issue fair wages or unfair wages, by assuming that goods made by unionists are always made by men getting fair wages, while goods made by non-unionists are, in like manner, made by men who are not getting fair wages. All through the discussion, the supporters of these proposals have assumed that those who are not members of unions do not receive fair wages. While that may be true in some parts of the world, it cannot be true of industries which are under Wages Boards or Arbitration Courts. In Victoria there are forty trades under Wages Boards, while in New South Wales all industries are subject to the awards of the Arbitration Court.

Mr Tudor:

– How far do the decisions of the Wages Boards of Victoria extend?

Mr ROBINSON:

Mr SPENCE:

– Quite so. Prior to the passing of the law requiring that to be done, one had to accept the word of the shopkeeper. But if a registered mark be placed on goods, we shall secure certainty in this regard. I propose to quote an extract from a sermon delivered by a clergyman, in Baltimore. A clergyman is one who is not usually regarded as taking sides. Indeed, I hold it is wrong to speak of sides in this connexion. Instead of seeking to drive capital and labour further apart, we should endeavour to secure mutual agreement between, them. In the United States an employer is allowed to use the union label because he observes fair conditions of labour. Does not that in itself suggest that the system tends to bring about harmonious relations between the two parties? Instead of driving employer and employe apart, -the union label legislation of the United States has caused a better feeling to prevail. It certainly must extend unionism, but every honorable member of the Opposition has expressed himself in favour of unionism.

An Honorable Member. - Voluntary unionism.

Mr. LONSDALE (New England).I have always stood firmly for the equal rights of all men, whether they are unionists or non-unionists. If thatisnot not true and perfect democracy I do not know what is. I do not wish to prevent men from joining unions if they desire to do so, but I feel that they should not be forced to join unions if they desire to keep out of them. Men should not be compelled, by means of the union label, preference to unionists, or any action of that kind, to join unions against their will. If the honorable member for Darling says that my position is a wrong one, he stamps himself as a Tory, instead of as the pure-hearted democrat which he claims to be, and I brand him and his party as Tories. Why is it sought to legalize the union label? The object is to secure special privileges for a certain section of the community; not to. give equal rights to all, but to give, by the operation of law, a preference to the smallest class in the community. The Legislature will be doing wrong if it agrees to anything of the kind. The honorable member for Darling assumed that, because goods bear a union label, they will be of good quality. But there are thousands of men who are not. unionists who are as good and as capable workmen as are the members of unions. A union label does not indicate quality. All that it means is that the goods to which it is attached have been made by unionists, and it is used to compel the public to buy only such goodsby boycotting those who use any others. This Legislature has no right to countenance such action. Not only the honorable member for Darling, but the Attorney-General - about whom I shall say a few words presently - made the assumption that the union label stands for quality. The honorable member for Wide Bay, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, in a speech made at Hurstville, New South Wales, on Saturday last, said -

Adulteration permeated the whole range of food and diet, and the persons who thus defrauded the public were murderers in effect, as the little ones were starved and killed by false foods. The Argus said that these were trade customs, but this was no palliation of the slaughter of the innocents, to which Herod’s was as nothing. They had been engaged for the past two weeks in the Commonwealth Parliamenton an endeavour to remedy this in some degree by the union label.

A voice : “ The gag.”

That was more like it. The two weeks were spent in trying to. adopt means to prevent honorable members on this side of the Chamber from speaking the truth about these union label provisions. The honorable member replied -

Yes, if they liked to so call it, but the right of the majority to enable the consumer to find out at least who manufactured what they ate, drank, or wore.

The union label gives no guarantee of quality. If honorable members wish to prevent the use of goods which are not of the best quality, let them vote for the. following amendment, which I intend to move, but which I feel sure they will oppose: -

No person shall apply to any goods for the ‘purposes of trade or sale, or knowingly sell or exhibit for sale, or have in his possession for sale, or for any purpose of trade or manufacture, any goods to which there is applied any mark, distinctive device, design, symbol, or label which falsely represents the quality of such goods, the country where, or the conditions of labour under which, such goods were produced.

Mr Isaacs:

– I do not know what authority the honorable member has for saying that. An eminent legal authority in Victoria indorses the view which I have expressed. After carefully examining the law on the subject, he has arrived at the conclusion that -

In my opinion, the Commonwealth Parliament has not power to legislate in respect of what I have called for shortness “ Union Labels,” on the ground - [a) Because they do not ‘indicate by what persons the articles were made, but only membership of a certain association.

Their use is not enjoyed as incident to any business, and the right to use cannot be transferred with the transfer of a business.

There is no exclusive use, as many persons not connected in business, and unknown to each other, have the right to use, the right to use being acquired by becoming a member of an association, and being lost by ceasing to be a member.

Mr Tudor:

– Will the honorable member tell us who sent out the resolutions that were adopted by the farmers ?

Mr JOHNSON:

– Provided that the resolutions are based on truth, right, and justice, it matters not who sent them out. I do not hold a brief for the Employers’ Association, or; any other body of men; but I do hold a brief for truth, right, and justice, and equal freedom to all; and, those are the principles by which I intend to stand. . I think the position has been put. very clearly by Judge Hunt, of California, in the case of Pearce v. The Stablemen’ s Union Local, 8760, decided in 1904. In his judgment’ he says -

The property which every m.m has in his own labour, as it is the ‘original foundation of all other property, so. it is the most sacred and inviolate. Hence no syndicate of employers, or unions of employes, can bar one of the right to labour, for .the right to labour is the right to live. In Billings v. Hall the Supreme Court of California refers to the constitutional question on this point as one of the fundamental principles of en1 lightened government, without a rigorous observance of which there can be neither liberty nor safety to the citizen. The right to labour is a right of property, and the duty to protect is the highest office of our laws.

That is a sound principle to lay down, and, coming from such authority, should command respect, even from members of the Labour Party. It lays down the principle that every individual is entitled to the full rights of property in his own labour. It is also pointed out that the right to live is involved in the right to labour, and that every man should be permitted to dispose of his labour as he chooses, without interference ‘from outsiders. Canada has been profiting by the experience which has been gained from the abuse of the union label in America. During the last ten years repeated attempts have been made to legalize the use of the union label in Canada. The latest effort was made in the early part of this year, but after a five-months’ struggle it was defeated.

Mr Tudor:

– I suppose that the honorable member knows that the Trade Union Marks Bill has passed the Lower House in Canada no less than seven times?

Mr JOHNSON:

– I know that it has never been passed into law in Canada yet. It was never a Government measure. I believe that it originated in the Upper House. It. is essentially a Tory measure, and provisions similar to those contained in it are being advocated at the present time by the Labour Party, which is the Tory Partypar excellence in this House. Now let us turn to Victoria. In September, 1903, the Full Court adjudicated upon the case of Martell v. the Victorian Coal Miners’ Association, Victorian Law Reports, volume 29, page 475. This is laid down -

Where a combination or an individual does any act with intent to harm another, without lawful excuse, and harm, in fact, results to him, an action lies for damages by the person injured. Where unlawful means are adopted to effect the purpose of such combination, there can be no lawful excuse. A combination of persons with intent to coerce their employer by means of a threat into dismissing from his employment, or refusing to employ another person, is actionable at the suit of that person, where the threat used is that of an unlawful strike. Such a combination can in no case be lawful. Where the dominant purpose and intention of a combination of persons is to harm another, and harm, in fact, results to him, it is no lawful excuse that they are pursuing their own business, or advancing their own interests, as, e.g., that they are upholding the principle of trades unionism or are punishing the person so harmed for a violation of such principle.

Mr Frazer:

– But it is lawful for that same coal company to make it a condition precedent to the employment of men that they must be non-unionists.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I am just as much opposed to that sort of thing as I am to the other -

The person who procures the act of another is legally responsible for its consequence’s, even though the act induced is within the right of the immediate actor, if it be to the detriment of a third person, and if he can be shown to have procured his object by the use of illegal means directed against that third party.

It will be seen, therefore; that at the present time the use of the boycott is illegal. It is because it is actionable at law that an attempt is being made in this Bill to legalise it in order to permit of its application under the guise of the union label.

Mr Isaacs:

– The honorable member knows that there is a provision in this Bill which expressly provides against that.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Some amendments have been outlined which honorable members opposite - if they desire to protect the rights of non-unionists and of the public - will support.

Mr Webster:

– Let us get on to the amendments.

Mr JOHNSON:

– The honorable member for Gwydir has been absent from the Chamber for a couple of hours enjoying himself, and upon his return heat once desires to take charge of the House. I certainly resent his action. If he is anxious to air his opinions,hecan do so at the proper time, but I will not tolerate his impertinences. Chief Justice Knowlton, of Massachusetts, United States, in giving judgment in the case of Berry versus Donovan, in which the plaintiff, a non-union shoemaker, sued an officer of the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union for damages for procuring his discharge from employment by Messrs. Goodrich and Company, boot manufacturers, of Haverhill, because he was not a member of the union, said-

The primary right of the plaintiff to have the benefit of his contract, and to remain undisturbed in the performance of it, is universally recognised. The right to dispose of one’s labour as he will, and have the benefit of his lawful contracts, is incident to the freedom of the individual, which lies at the foundation of government in all countries that maintain the principles of civil liberty. Such a right can lawfully be interfered with only by one who is acting in the exercise of an equal or superior right, which comes in conflict with the other. An intentional interference with such a right, without lawful justification, is malicious in law, even if it is from good motives and without express malice.

There is only one other point to which I desire to refer. It has been said that the employers themselves will be great gainers by the introduction of the union label. In opposition to that view, I wish to point out the effect of its adoption on the commercial value of trade marks, as instanced in the cigar trade in Canada. The cigar manufacturers there, ‘controlling 85 per cent, of the cigar production, of that country, recently made strong representations to the Dominion Parliament in opposition to the Bill which was rejected early during the present year. They thus stated their case - .

All cigars are marketed to the consumer under labels or brands, and as certain lines grow in public favour, the Trade Marks, as covered by the various label designs, become very valuable assets of the manufacturer, and are saleable for large sums. If labour organizations are also permitted to register their particular emblem as a trade mark, and can then through the strength of their organization compel the manufacturer (as they oft-times do) to affix this label on each box of cigars, the value of the Trade Mark becomes practically ruined as a saleable asset. All the labels on a package of cigars are equally part of the Trade Mark with the brand name, and except they can be delivered complete, their sale is ruined. The manufacturer cannot sell the Union Label Trade Mark on his package with the rest of his Trade Mark, nor can he give any guarantee that the privilege of its use will be extended to the purchaser of his brand. Instances have occurred within the past few years where the presence of the Union Label has prevented the sale of a brand at a large figure.

Any effort to discard this emblem of Union Labour has invariably been followed by the most strenuous and persistent boycott. The use of the Union Label is not optional, at least this is the experience of cigar manufacturers. Factories’ have employed union labour, and complied with all union conditions except that they would not affix the Union Label on their brands. Strikes have been precipitated to enforce this ruling. On certain high-grade brands of cigars the Union Label is a serious drawback in the sale of the product, and to give this emblem the status of a registered Tirade Mark is but the first step to its compulsory use wherever the union issuing same has sufficient powers.

The registration of the Union Label is necessarily illegal. It is not, nor can it ever be, made a Trade Mark by process of law. This opinion has been laid down by the Trade Mark Branch of the Department of Agriculture, and by several eminent trade mark authorities in Canada. A trade mark is essentially a mark placed on a piece of merchandise to indicate its ownership. To register the Union Label would be to accord the unions part proprietorship in every piece of merchandise to which their label was affixed. According to the legal advice of the Dominion Cigar Manufacturers’ Association, such an act could not be sanctioned by law.

The registration of the Union Label would be simply disastrous to cigar manufacturing interests in Canada, and would eventually ruin the immensely valuable assets owned by cigar manufacturers in their popular labels and brands.

Here we have evidence that a large association controlling 85 per cent, of the total cigar production of Canada has issued a memorial to the Government of the Dominion, in which they positively state that the use of the union label has the effect of injuring the value of their trade mark, that the union label itself is not a trade mark, cannot in its nature, or by any process of law, be converted into a trade mark,, and that its enforced use, even upon goods; which have all been made by union labour, brings about the ruination of trade in many instances, and certainly depreciates1 the value of the trade mark of those engaged in the production and sale of cigar* in that country. There are several decisions in the American Courts to the effect that a union label is not a trade mark, and also that trade unions are not tradingcorporations, and, therefore, cannot be entitled to the use of a trade mark. Here is one, which was given by Judge Williams in the case of M’Vey v. Brendel, in 1891, in Pennsylvania -

I conclude that the Cigar Makers’ International Union of America is neither a trader within the meaning of the common law, nor within the.,purview of the Act of Congress. Not being a trader in any sense, it can have no distinctive trade mark. Registration under such circumstances isnot authorized by the Act of Congress, and if made, confers no title, and gives no standing ground in a court of law or equity.

Then, in the case of State v. Bishop, in 1895, Judge Burgess said -

It may be conceded that the label is not what is generally understood by law-writers to be a> technical trade mark, because it does not pretend or intimate that the cigars are owned, prepared, or manufactured by the union as an organization, or that as such union, it has any interest or property therein, nor by what particular firm or persons the cigars to which it may be attached were manufactured.

Then, in the case of Hetterman Brothers and Company v. Powers, in 1897, Judge Hazel rigg said -

First we may admit that the label of the Cigarmakers’ National Union is not used as a trade mark in the ordinary sense of the word. It is not a brand put on goods by an owner to separate or distinguish them from the goods of others.

Similar decisions given in other cases could be quoted, and all the authorities agree that a union label and a trade mark are essen.tially different things, and that one cannot serve the purpose of the other. It cannot be argued for a moment that workers, whether working in their individual capacity or in association as unions could, by the use of a label upon the goods they produce, acquire a proprietary right in those goods; nor can it be urged that they could be classed as traders in those goods. The very essential purpose of a trade mark is absent from the union label. The purpose of a trade mark is to protect the owner, seller, or trader in goods from the piracy of others engaged ‘in the manufacture or sale of similar goods. It is to protect individual rights, or the rights of corporations trading ‘in goods or manufacturing them, that the trade mark is granted. These conditions cannot possibly apply to all the workers engaged in the production of goods, and they cannot have the same proprietary rights as the owners or sellers of the goods. On these grounds I think that these clauses ought to be referred to the investigation of a Select Committee. I am, assured that very many persons in this community are willing to come forward and give valuable evidence before such a Committee, which at a later stage might be used for the information of honorable members, and perhaps to convert those who are now opposed to. the union label to a different way of thinking. In, the absence of any investigation of the kind, and of such evidence as might thus be obtained, the Opposition are perfectly justified, on principle, in opposing these clauses, and in resisting the attempt to engraft such provisions on a measure dealing with trade marks. I wish it to be distinctly understood that, in opposing these clauses, I am not opposing trade unionism., or speaking against it in any way. Though some honorable members may laugh at that statement, I have always been an upholder of the principle of trade unionism. I have always held that it is a good thing for workers to combine for lawful purposes.

Mr Wilson:

– The honorable member refers to voluntary combination.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Yes. I believe that it is a good thing that they should form, themselves into voluntary societies or unions for the purpose of securing better conditions and terms for their labour.

Mr Hutchison:

– Only the honorable member objects to help them.

Mr JOHNSON:

– No._ I would help them on right lines; but’ I have .always contended that the principle of liberty should be steadily kept in view in the formation of these associations, and that the element of compulsion, should never be per mitted to enter into them. As soon as it does, the free right of choice is lost to the individual, and that is a thing which should always be guarded against by every marr who professes any regard for liberty or correct principle. It is because of the compulsion which underlies the whole of these proposals, and because of that element of compulsion which has suggested their inclusion in this measure, that we are opposed to them. We object to the will of the minority being forced upon the majority, and to coercive measures being brought to bear to compel free men to sacrifice their freedom and to become members of organizations which they have no desire to join. At the same time, I would heartily recommend all workers to voluntarily join unions, and especially those who believe in freedom, so that, by their influence and reasoning, they may be able to convert those who are opposed to the principles of freedom from the error of their devious ways. If the unions form themselves into voluntary trading corporations, there is mo reason why .they should not have trade marks. I could see no objection to that. If trade unionists desire to secure the reasonable benefits of the provisions of a Trade Marks Act, let them form themselves into trading associations. Let them form themselves into voluntary co-operative institutions, and engage in the manufacture and sale of goods, and then they will be’ equally entitled, with other manufacturers and sellers of goods, to the protection of their wares, but they cannot claim a protection for wares which they do not own. Therefore, it seems to me that to attempt to confuse a union label with a trade mark is one which can only impose upon those who are either wilfully deficient in understanding, or are willing to be imposed upon.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I rise to make an appeal to” the AttorneyGeneral to consent to progress being reported. It is nearly half-past 11 o’clock., and there has been no unreasonably long speech- “delivered to-day. I have listened very attentively to the debate, and in my opinion we have done a good day’s work. The Attorney-General commenced with a two-hours’ speech), and I am’ sure that noone begrudged him a moment of that time. He delivered/ a speech, replete with research’, such as we might expect from him after he had carefully prepared himself-

Since then there has been a series of speeches, and the longest one, I think, was that made by the honorable member for Darling.

Mr Tudor:

– No; the last speech was longer in delivery.

Mr Johnson:

– I spoke for less than an hour.

Mr McCay:

– It was seven minutes longer than the honorable member for Darling.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Tudor:

– That is all that has ever been done in America.

Mr KELLY:

Mr Kennedy:

– The honorable member does not support it.

Mr WILSON:

– For various reasons I have thought it wise to withdraw from the unions and associations with which I was formerly connected. To that extent. I am a non-unionist.

Mr Kennedy:

– Some people would call the honorable member a black-leg.

Mr WILSON:

– I am not a black-leg, although I may be a non-unionist. I have never clone anything that would justify any one in stating that I was a black-leg or a “scab.” I would not care to be called such names, and I would suggest to members of the Labour Party that it is unwise to apply to their fellow-men. such opprobrious terms. The letter to which I have referred is one of some importance, in view of the fact that the Store-keepers’ and Traders’ Association is a union just in the same sense that a workman’s organization is a union. The letter states -

Re the union label clauses. Having considered the matter fully, your Committee is convinced that such legislation would be detrimental and extremely harassing to the trader who would be called upon to discriminate between individuals as unionists and non-unionists by the stocks he kept, although both are df equal value to him ; in all ways it would make for coercion, dissatisfaction, and loss. I trust that you, in common with all well-wishers of the Commonwealth, will use every effort to have these obnoxious and mischievous clauses expunged from the contemplated legislation.

Now, I propose to read a letter which has been forwarded to me by the secretary of the Shire of Warrnambool, which is one of the most important in the State of Victoria. The letter is as follows: -

At a large and representative public meeting held in the Town Hall, Warrnambool, on the 29th inst., with- a view to discussing the Trade Marks Bill now being debated in the Federal Parliament, the following resolution was adopted, and I was instructed to forward the same to you, namely, “ That this meeting strongly protests against Part VII. of the proposed Bill, known as the union label clause, firstly, as to its being antagonistic to the liberty of the people, secondly as to its being detrimental to the producing and trading interests of the community, and thirdly, as to its discrimination between union and all other labour.”

I have also received a letter from the Town Clerk of Warrnambool, who says - -

I have the honour by direction of the Warrnambool Town Council to inform you that at a public meeting held here on the 20th ultimo the resolution as under was carred by a large majority, and for the very grave reasons stated therein I am to request your valuable influence and support thereto.

Then follows the resolution previously quoted. I have received another communication from the Farmers’, Property-owners’, and Producers’ Association - a body which works throughout the whole of the country districts of Victoria. It is an antisocialistic organization, but, nevertheless, it wields a very great influence. The letter is dated Geelong, 18th November, and reads as follows : -

I am directed by the Executive Committee of the Farmers’, Property Owners’, and Producers’ Association to notify you that the following resolution has been agreed to by all the branches of this Association in Victoria, namely, - “ That the members of this Association protest against the union label on the ground that it will interfere with industrial liberty, and give to unions - controlled for political purposes - the power to boycott those who have an equal right with unionists to freely dispose of the produceof their labour.” .

My Executive Committee trusts that you will give consideration to the above resolution, which has been carried unanimously by 130 branches of this Association, which exist throughout theState of Victoria.

Yours faithfully,

J. D’Helin, Secretary.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think that we ought to have a quorum. [Quorum formed].

Mr WILSON:

– The next letter that I have to read is from the Colac branch of the Australian. Women’s National League. It is dated 16th November, and reads -

Sir, - I beg to inform you that a meeting of theabove branch, which was largely attended, was held on 16th November. The secretary referred fully to the union label clauses of the Trade Marks Bill, and the following resolution was carried unanimously : - “ That in the opinion of this meeting, the union, label clauses of the Trade Marks Bill now before the Federal House, will if passed be a direct interference with the liberty of the subject, and a discrimination of persons, and that in favour of a minority as against a majority. It will hamper storekeepers in their operations, and penalizethe purchasing public, of which so large a classare women.” ,

I am, Yours faithfully,

Emma Greig, Secretary.

I have also received a telegram from Inverleigh >

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Where is that?

Mr WILSON:

– It is a town eight miles from Bannockburn, and Bannockburn isfourteen miles from Geelong. It is in the electorate of Corangamite, but under the redistribution of seats scheme it will be included within the electorate of Corio. Thetelegram reads : -

Inverleigh branch Farmers’ League unanimously approves your action opposing union label clause, and strongly condemns such clause.

Peel, Secretary.

I now propose to read an extract from the

Agc, of 23rd September last, setting forth a resolution which was carried by the New South Wales Employers’ Federation. The resolution is -

Federation strongly opposed to AttorneyGeneral’s proposed amendments in connexion with union label provisions, Trade Marks Bill, and1 consider the label, together with the amendments, as calculated to introduce new and irritating relations between employers and employed. They are also opposed to common law rights, as they strainthe Constitution, and are likely to promote antipathy in the States to the Commonwealth.

That expresses the feeling of a large body of men in New South Wales with regard to> these clauses. That strong feeling against these clauses exists also in Queensland will be seen from the following resolution of the Federated Employers’ Executive in that State : -

Federated Employers’ Executive strongly averse to proposed amendments, Trade Marks Bill, being in nature of express class legislation, and subversive of good relations between employers and workers, interfering with individual common law rights, and calculated to embarrass and embitter all employing classes. The Commonwealth trade mark invidiously affects and injures some States, and will certainly deepen distrust of Federal Parliament, and increase disaffection in such States to the Commonwealth system.

That is, if anything,, a stronger protest than that which I have quoted from New South Wales, and Queensland is a State which is not supposed to be hostile to labour legislation. I have here another resolution from South Australia-

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Is the honorable member in order in reading newspaper extracts commenting upon a matter before the House?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member doubtless refers to standing order 268, and I am of opinion that the honorable member for Corangamite is not contravening that standing order by the quotations he is making in reference to the matter before the Committee.

Mr WILSON:

– This is the opinion of the Federated Employers of South Australia on this question: -

Meeting of this Council held to-day, unanimous support acceded Central Council in opposing Trade Marks Bill.

Though the Trade Marks Bill is referred to, their objection is really to the union label clauses embodied in that Bill by the present Government at the instigation of honorable members in the Labour comer, who so entirely control them. Feeling on the subject is also strong in Tasmania, where the following resolution was passed by the Launceston Chamber of Commerce : -

Executive committee of chamber, after careful perusual of Attorney-General’s .amendments, and the remarks thereon, passed following resolution : - “ That we confirm the resolution of the chamber of the 8th ult., and equally condemn the amendments as not- in any way removing objectionable f eatures of the Bill.

– With regard to the interjection of the deputy leader of the Opposition, I should like to say that the Attorney-General opened the debate on this question, and consequently cannot be said to have used arguments previously used in the same debate.

Mr WILSON:

Mr Watson:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

-I do not.

Mr Watson:

– If the honorable member had been engaged in my trade instead of in the coal mining industry, he would have been a “boycotter” too.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

-I have always been ready to boycott the “ sweater,” and I would do so to-morrow. When the honorable member for Bland made the statement to which I have alluded he was referring to the practice of black-listing byemployers. He said -

Some honorable members have seen a copy of the black-list circulated amongst the pastoralists of Western Queensland. I have seen black-lists circulated in respect to other callings. I do not say that an “employer who boycotts is necessarily wrong in doing so….. A boycott is often justifiable.

The result of a boycott is always to stir up further strife In my opinion, when it comes to boycotting, the capitalist in every case gains an advantage, because he has the means of carrying on the war, whereas the worker has not. In another portion of his argument, the AttorneyGeneral said that this was not a case of union as against non-union labour, and could not be argued in that way. He said it was the case of a great body of workers who were asking that the same rights should be extended to them as were given to other trade-mark owners. If that be so, there must have been a strange modification of feeling amongst members of the Labour Party since this matter was introduced into the Senate. I recollect Senator Drake moving the insertion of the following new clause: -

Notwitstanding anything contained in this Part, no trade union shall refuse to authorize a manufacturer or .employer who adopts the rate of wages and the hours of employment fixed in reference to the trade of such trade union under any law of the Commonwealth or of a State to apply if he so desires its union trade mark to the products of the labour of the( members thereof employed by him or to the same kind of products of the labour of any employes not members of such union employed by him.

– He is. The Government will not allow us to go to our homes.

Mr Isaacs:

– Yes, we will.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then I will test their sincerity by moving -

That the Chairman report progress.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 29

Majority … … 22

– The honorable and’ learned gentleman, is aware that the legalization of the union label is not. universal in the United States even now. I quoted the decisions in some cases, and I now propose to quote others.

The following dicta from American Judges will be read with interest: -

Mr Isaacs:

– What is the reference?

Mr JOHNSON:

– I need not give the honorable and learned gentleman the reference. I shall quote the cases, and he will then be able to look them up for himself.

Mr Isaacs:

– The honorable member is ashamed of his authority.

Mr JOHNSON:

– If the AttorneyGeneral desires a reference to opinions on the union label, I can refer him to a lead ing article which appeared in the Age of the 17th of this month. I find that in the case of the Cigar-makers’ Protective Union v. Canham, in 1889, Judge Gilfillan, of Minnesota said -

The device is wanting in the essential characterization of the legal trade mark.

It is not adopted nor used to indicate by what person the articles were made, but simply to indicate membership of a certain association.
Its use is not enjoyed as an incident of any business, and the right to use it cannot be transferred even with the transfer of the business in which it may be employed. The right to use it can be transferred only by becoming a member of one of the unions or employing those who are members, and lost only by ceasing to be a member or to employ members.
There is no exclusiveness in the use or right to use what is a necessary thing in a legal trade mark.

All these authorities, so far as I am able to discover, are in absolute agreement that a union label and a trade mark are two entirely distinct things, and that one cannot take the place of the other. A union label is merely a mark to indicate the goods made by the members of a certain union, and has absolutely no commercial value, such as is inherent “in a trade mark. In the case, Carson v. Wry, in 1889, Justice Thayer, of the Federal Judiciary, said -

The union label does not answer to the definition ordinarily given of a technical trade mark The Court may not interfere in this instance as in ordinary trade mark cases.

Here, again, we have an absolute distinct tion made, and the right to interfere in the case of a trade mark is recognised. The protection of the Court could not be extended in the case of a union label, which signifies merely membership of an association. In the case Werner v. Brayton, in 1890, Judge Devens, of Massachusetts, said -

We are of opinion that the label alleged by the Bill in the case at bar to have been counterfeited cannot be treated as a trade mark…… It wants every essential element of such a mark.

Mr Isaacs:

– They are all counterfeit cases.

Mr JOHNSON:

The Court may not interfere in this instance as in an ordinary trade mark case.

By that observation, it seems to me the Judge laid down a very definite distinction between a union label and a trade mark in the ordinary acceptation of the term.

Mr Isaacs:

– That is in the absence of a measure like that which we are considering, and that makes all the difference.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I do not know whether the Attorney-General has read an opinion which was given to a certain association Here, by learned counsel, who, if

I remember aright, lays it down that the union label cannot be legalized, and calls’ in question the legality of this legislation.

Mr Isaacs:

– The honorable member is getting his information from the same source, and it is right, so far as it goes ; but they have carefully omitted that the learned counsel said that it is a matter of extreme difficulty.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I shall quote from the opinion directly. I repeat that in the United States the judicial authorities seem to recognise a distinction in character between a union label and a trade mark.

Mr Isaacs:

– Only in the absence of legislation.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I do not see how even legislation can change the essential character of the union label. From House

Documents, volume 88, for the session of 1 900- 1, I propose toquote a section from the labour laws of California. It appears on page 1005, under the head of “ Trade Marks, &c, of Trade Unions,” and reads as follows: -

Any person engaged in the production, manufacture, or sale of any article of merchandise made in whole or in part in this State, who, by any imprint, label, trade mark, tag, stamp, or other inscription or device, placed or impressed upon such article or upon the cask, box, case,or package containing the same, misrepresents or falsely states the kind, character, or nature of the labour employed or used, or the extent of the labour employed or used, or the number or kind of persons exclusively employed or used, or that a particular or distinctive class or character of labourers was wholly and exclusively used or employed when in fact another class or character or distinction of labourers was used or employed either jointly or in any wise supplementary to such exclusive class, character, or distinction of labourers, in the production or manufacture of the article to which such imprint, label, trade mark, tag, stamp, or other inscription or device is affixed, or upon the cask, box, case, or package containing the same, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and punishable by a fine of not less than Fifty nor more than Five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county gaol for not less than twenty nor more than nfnety days, or both.

This legislation was approved on the 16th March,1901.It will be seen that although it is headed “ Trade Marks, &c, of Trades Unions,” it deals not with union labels, but with any person engaged in the production, manufacture, or sale of any article of merchandise.

Mr Isaacs:

– If the honorable member will refer to House Documents, volume 105, for the session 1903-4, he will find, at page 130, this section under the head of “Trade Marks of Trade Unions, &c.” : -

Any trade union, labour association, or labour organization, organized and existing in this State, whether incorporated or not, may adopt and use a trade mark and affix thesame to any goods made, produced, or manufactured by the members of such trade union, labour association, or labour organization, or to the box, cask, case, or package containing such goods, and may record such trade mark by filing or causing to be filed with the Secretary of State its claim to the same, and a copy or description of such trade mark with the affidavit of the president of such trade union, labour association, or labour organization, certified to by any officer authorized to take acknowledgments of conveyances setting forth that the trade union, labour association, or labour organization of which he is the president is the exclusive owner, or agent of the owner, of such trade mark.

Mr JOHNSON:

– The barium was found, not in imported boots, but in locally made leather. If the union label is intended to insure that the people shall get sound goods, I submit that it will not attain that end. It will be utterly powerless to protect the public against cases of imposition, and when honorable members say that it will, they are only misleading their constituents. Speaking on Saturday night at Hurstville, the honorable member for Wide Bay is reported to have said -

There had been a struggle in the Federal Parliament as to whether manufacturers should be allowed to falsely state that their goods were made under union conditions. The union label was to be used solely and wholly to show the purchaser whetherhe goods were made under proper conditions or not, and thus allow him or her to decide whether to purchase the articles. It was true, and he did not wish to deny it-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member is not in order in reading an extract relating to a debate in the House.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Privately I shall point out to the honorable member for Wide Bay the passages in which he referred to the Trade Marks Bill, and the reason for its introduction. The real object of the union label ‘is to secure preference to unionists by another method than that which was adopted in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I should like to know how some honorable members who have most trenchantly denounced that principle are now to be found in a Government which is not only supporting, but putting forward, proposals for its enactment. I refer to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, and the Postmaster-General.

Mr Isaacs:

– That has been said halfadozen times.

Mr Poynton:

– Is the honorable member in order in repeating statements which have been made by the honorable and learned member for Illawarra and others in this regard ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I would ask the honorable member to refrain from repeating any statements which may have been previously made.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I assure you, sir, that I have made the statement only once. Whilst the enactment of the union label may be justified in countries which do not possess industrial legislation, such as these States possess, for the special protection of workers in various ways, there is no justification for its enactment in Australia. Our Wages Boards, Arbitration Courts, and factories laws are designed expressly to insure to the workers those very conditions, which it is urged the enactment of the union label will secure. It will introduce what are known in the United States as “closed shops.” On that subject, I propose to read a short extract from an article which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, of October, j 904. It is from the pen of Mr. Charles J. Bullock, and is entitled “ The Closed Shop.” The concluding paragraph reads as follows: -

A little reflection should convince any one that the conditions under which a man shall dispose of his labour are of such exceeding importance to society that, if freedom is to be denied, the restrictions imposed should be determined by the. Government, and not by any other agency. Such regulations should be just, uniform, and certain ; they should not be subject to the possible caprice, selfishness, or special exigencies of a labour organization. Here, as elsewhere, we should apply the principle that when it is necessary to restrict the freedom of labour or. capital to enter any industry, the matter becomes the subject of public concern and public regulation. If membership in a labour organization is to be a condition precedent to the right of securing employment, it will be necessary for the Government to control the constitution, policy, and management of such associations, so far as may be requisite for the purpose in view. Only upon these terms would the compulsory unionization of industry be con- ceivable. Of course, before such legislation could be enacted, a change in the organic law of the States and the nation would need to be effected, for we now have numerous constitutional guarantees of the right of property in labour. These guarantees include the right to make lawful contracts, and the individual freedom so ordained can be restricted by the Legislature only when the restraint can be justified as a proper exercise of the police power. Time and effort might be required for securing such constitutional amendments; but ov.r instruments of Government provide a lawful and reasonable method of accomplishing this result.

Coming to the question of the repeated rejection of the union label in Canada, I propose to read some extracts : -

A Bill to legalize the union label was first introduced in 1895, and has been reintroduced almost every year since. It does not appear at any time to have been a Government measure, but was in the hands of private members, its latest sponsor being Mr. Ralph Smith, M.F.

In Canada, as in Australia, the union label cannot be registered as a trade mark under the existing law. Therefore, special legislation is required to legalize it. Up to and including 1903 the Bill to effect this purpose was introduced as an amendment of the Trade Marks and Designs Act. When the Bill of that year was discussed in the Upper House (where it was first brought in), the principle involved in’ recognising the label as a trade mark was declared to be unsafe and undesirable, and the measure was thrown out.

In this year’s Bill all reference to the Trade Marks Act was dropped, and it was styled “ The Union Label Bill.” It was introduced in the Canadian House of Commons on 30th January, 1905.

The Case for the Label.

The Bill seemed harmless, and the reasons urged for its adoption looked specious enough on the surface and at a first glance. Its promoters claimed that its intention was to prevent the use of bogus labels, and to protect’ the community from the products of prison labour and the sweat-shop, and to legalize a guarantee that all goods bearing the label represent fair wages, reasonable working hours, and good sanitary conditions.

The Case against the Label. .

The case against the label was presented to members by the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. While offering numerous and weighty argument’s against the label and its use, as shown, in the United States and in Canada, the employers really rested their case on the principle involved. They claimed that the questions for the Dominion Parliament to settle were - 1

Whether or not any labour union should have a legal sanction to use or abuse any light which history had shown to be used to the detriment of the whole community?
Was it desirable to forge a weapon to be placed in the hands of erratic, capricious, and financially unsound organizations to enable them to coerce employers to practically surrender the control of their factories to them, and to intimidate free and competent workmen, comprising more than seven-eighths of the 400,000 workpeople of Canada, to adopt union principles or be driven from employment?
Was it desirable to give indirect Parliamentary support and sanction to labour unions in proceedings, such as have recently occurred in connexion with the union label and other matters, whereby the city of Chicago was practically tied up, because of trouble in a small garment factory, or to provide such bodies with further powers ?

Mr KELLY:

– I have dealt with the proposition in order that we may gauge the accuracy of the Attorney-General’s judgment that there is no material difference between the first and second list of amendments circulated by him. Honorable members have framed their judgment on the original proposition made bv him, and the moment I begin to show that there is a vital difference between the two, the AttorneyGeneral would stifle discussion. I am surprised at that omission of a definition of a vital provision, since simple words like “production” and “produced” are defined at length. We can only regard those definitions as padding designed to cover up the deficiency to which I have referred. There is also a difference between the original proposition as to registration and that now under consideration. This appears to indicate that the AttorneyGeneral’s first proposal was loosely-drafted, because it did not protect the unions. In his second proposal he has corrected a number of his errors of omission. Another point is that in the original proposition there was a proper differentiation made between individual workers’ marks and association workers’ marks. That difference was a very real one. I think that there is a flaw in the present proposition, and that the two proposals ought to be properly separated. Although there is a pretence of similarity between the two, they have really nothing in common. The one deals with associations registering labels for definite purposes, and the other with individual workers’ marks which can be of no value to the individual, since no article is the product pf one man. This is an indication of the need for further consideration of these matters on the part of the Attorney-General. Some days ago I quoted a statement from an American journal that the union label was typical of American industrial conditions - conditions which did not exist outside that country. But I heard last night that an honorable member of this House was instrumental in introducing the principle of the union label in one of the greatest unions in the mother country. We know what has been the effect of the union label in the United States and the honorable member in question ought certainly to tell us what has been the experience in England in this regard. We can only assume, in the absence of any explanation, that it has been still more unfortunate than has been that of the United States. The honorable member for Darling said that these provisions would be exceptionally beneficial to non-unionists. He proceeds on the assumption that whenever the union label is used, higher wages will prevail. I contest that assumption. It is clear that, so far as the majority of the workers in the Commonwealth are concerned one tribunal settles all questions of wages. But if the honorable member’s original assumption be right - and we know that it is not - he is still wrong when, he proceeds further with his line of argument. He says that if non-unionists are forced to join unions because of the union label, they are forced into improved conditions. In that respect he is egregiously wrong. There is only a certain yearly amount of national production. All wages, whether of capital or of labour, have to be paid out of that yearly production, and if all men have to be driven into unions, does it not necessarily follow that there will be a levelling down as well as a levelling up of wages. The amount of wages to be paid practically remains stationary within narrow limits. If men are forced into unions the result will be, not to bring all wages up to union rates,, but to. draw a mean between the lower wages which the honorable member claims are paid outside the unions, and the higher wages that are paid inside. I trust that the Attorney-General will seriously consider the points that I have endeavoured to put before him.

Mr. JOHNSON (Lang). - I wish to make a personal explanation. During the course of my speech this morning I referred to the fact that the honorable member for Wide Bay - the deputy leader of the Labour Party - had paid a visit to my electorate, and in the course of a speech had referred to the adulteration of food and clothing in. a way that suggested that these proposals were designed to remedy that evil. When asked to quote the authority for my statement, I referred honorable members to the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph, but was not able at the moment to put my hand on the report which I had in mind. I have now before me the Daily Telegraph of the 27th ult., which reports that in the course of the speech in question the honorable member for Wide Bay said -

Adulteration permeated the whole range of food and diet, and the persons who thus defrauded the public were murderers in effect, as the little ones were starved and lulled by false foods. . . . They had been engaged for the past two weeks in the Commonwealth Parliament on an endeavour to remedy this in some degree by the union label.

A Voice.-“ The gag.”

Yes, continued Mr. Fisher, if they liked to so call it, but the right of the majority to enable the consumer to find out at least who manufactured what they ate, drank, or wore.

– Will any one have two places reserved to him in Heaven because of his superior abilities?

Mr KNOX:

Mr KNOX:

– I am. I am not professing to voice the opinions of labour, but of those who provide the capital, energy, and enterprise by which industries are carried on. The following letter has been sent to me by the Chamber of Commerce, Melbourne : -

Chamber of Commerce, Melbourne. 60 Market-street,

Melbourne, 25th November, 1905.

Sir,

I have the honour, by direction of the council of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, to ask if you will be good enough to use your influence on behalf of the members of this Chamber, to oppose the union label clauses in the Trade Marks Bill. The Bill has recently received most careful consideration by my Council, and it thinks the measure should be thrown out, and for the following reasons- : -

It is uncalled for - the allegations of piracy by Australian manufacturers of goods reputed to be made by trade union labour being absolutely without foundation.
It favours the ambitions of a minority of workmen againstthe interests of the majority.
The Bill, if passed, will, by the admission of the Labour leader in the House of Representatives, be made a weapon of boycott, to the serious detriment of the free workman, of the manufacturers and producers, and of the community generally. The people of the Commonwealth will inevitably have to pay higher for their necessities.

Mr Watson:

– I say now, as I stated last night, when a similar assertion was quoted by the honorable member for Corangamite, that that statement is absolutely untrue.

Mr KNOX:

– The letter proceeds: -

The Bill appears to be framed solely as a means of coercion in the hands of the unionists, and is certain to be detrimental to the trade of Australia, both at home and abroad.

The provision to enable an individual free workman to register a label, the Council considers, is of no value whatever under modern conditions of manufactures, and the proposed Commonwealth label is also regarded by this Chamber as worthless, either to the workmen themselves or to the manufacturers and producers.

I am also desired to inform you that the above reasons were forwarded to the Hon. the AttorneyGeneral, and for your information am to enclose copy of the correspondence which has since passed between Mr. Isaacs and this Chamber on the subject.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Hallett,

Secretary.

The President of the General Council of Chambers of Commerce of the Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne.

The Attorney-General, in reply to these reasons, wrote a letter, through Mr. R. R. Garran, as follows: -

Commonwealth of Australia.

Attorney-General’s Department,

Melbourne, 20th November, 1905.

Sir,

I am directed by the Attorney-General to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant with reference to the union label clauses in the Trade Marks Bill, and to inform you that the Attorney-General would be glad to be informed at your earliest convenience -

What allegations of piracy by Australian manufacturers of goods reputed to be made by trade union labour are referred to, and where shall he find those allegations ?
When and where was the admission of Mr. Watson made that is referred to, as the Attorney-General has never heard of such an admission?
What provisions in the Bill will afford means of coercion?

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) R. R. Garran,

Secretary.

The Secretary,

Chamber of Commerce, 60 Market-street, Melbourne.

The following reply was sent to the AttorneyGeneral’s letter: -

Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, 60 Market-street,

Melbourne, 23rd November, 1905.

Sir, I have the honour to acknowlege the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, and am directed to reply to the questions contained therein, in their regular order -

With regard to the allegation of piracy, I am directed to refer you to the remarks made by the Hon. J. C. Watson, M.P., which appeared in theAge newspaper of the . ‘2nd October, 1905 : - “ As to the Trades Union Label, to which exception has been taken, at present there was nothing in the law to prevent persons putting a label upon goods. What the Federal Government proposed to do was to prevent the fraudulent piracy by those who wanted to use another person’s label. The opponents of the Trades Union Label were actually showing sympathy with thieves and pirates.”

Again, Mr. Tudor, M.P., is reported to have stated at Prahran on the11th October (see Age, 12/10/05), that the object of the Trades Union Label was “ to prevent goods made by union labour being pirated.”

In answer to this question, I beg to refer you to the sub-leader of the Age newspaper of the 17th instant, as follows : - “The case for the union label clauses, from the workers point of view, was practically given away by Mr. Watson, when he remarked in the Federal Parliament last Wednesday evening that he would glory in a boycott undertaken to prevent some of the conditions which prevailed before the institution of Wages Boards and Arbitration Acts.” (See Hansard, p. 5202.)
In regard to your last question, I am desired to mention that it is notorious that in America the Union Label has been used as a means of boycott, a forcible and tyrannical means of coercion, and there is no reason to suppose that the unions here, who desire to force this measure upon the public against the interests of every other section of the community, willre f rain from making similar coercive use of the power they covet.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Hallett,

Secretary.

The Secretary,

Attorney-General’s Department,

Melbourne.

Mr Watson:

– There is an evasion contained in that reply.

Mr KNOX:

– Honorable members opposite have said more than once, while I have been speaking, that they do not desireto secure advantage by means of coercion. I frankly accept their assurances. I am glad that an opportunity will be given to them to show their bona fides. I have also a letter from the Farmers’, Property Owners’, and Producers’ Association Geelong, dated 18th November, 1905, whichI will read -

Dear Sir,

I am directed by the Executive Committee of the Farmers’, Property Owners’ and Producers* Association to notify you that the following resolution has been agreed to by all the branches of this Association in Victoria, viz. : -

That the members of this Association protest against the union label on the ground that it will interfere with industrial liberty and give to unions - controlled for political purposes - the power to boycott those who have an equal right’ with unionists to freely dispose of the produce of their labours.

My Executive Committee trusts that you will give consideration to the above resolution, which has been carried unanimously by 130 branches of this Association, which exist throughout the electorates in the State of Victoria.

Yours faithfully,

D’Helin, General Secretary.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– By permission of the honorable member for Kooyong, I wish to take the opportunity of directing attention to a few of the statements contained in the letter from the Chamber of Commerce, which he has quoted. I want to say straight away that the statement in the letter concerning myself is absolutely untrue. The third paragraph in the letter states that -

The Bill if passed will, by the admission of the labour leader in the House of Representatives, be made a weapon of boycott to the serious detriment of the free workman, of the manufacturers and producers, and of the community generally.

That is a direct statement that I said in the House that this Bill, if passed, would be made a weapon of boycott. I was not aware of this correspondence until the present moment ; but I gather from it that the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce was asked by the Attorney-General where the statement alleged to have been made by me was made. The Attorney-General had never heard of such a statement. In reply to that question, Mr. Hallett relies upon a statement published in a leading article in the Age newspaper, to the following effect : -

The case for the union label clauses, from the workers point of view, was practically given away by Mr. Watson when he remarked, in the Federal Parliament last Wednesday evening, that he would glory in a boycott undertaken to prevent some of the conditions which prevailed before the institution of Wages Boards and Arbitration Acts.

There is not a word even in that quotation to justify the statement contained in the first letter from the Chamber of Commerce which the honorable member for Kooyong quoted. The statement there is that I had admitted that the trade union label would be made a weapon of boycott. I made no such statement.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What the honorable member said was that he had taken part in boycotts, and had gloried in them.

Mr WATSON:

– Just so. I shall quote exactly what I said; and I may add that I have not touched one word of the Hansard report. The statement is published exactly as it was taken down by the Hansard reporters. I said, speaking on the 15th November -

Some honorable members have seen a copy of the black list circulated amongst the pastoralists of Western Queensland. I have seen black lists circulated in respect to other callings. I do not say that an employer who boycotts is necessarily wrong in doing so.

Mr Wilson:

– Wesaythat he is.

Mr WATSON:

– “We,” in this instance, does not mean a great deal. A boycott is often justi- fiable. Years ago, as a trade unionist, I joined in one or two boycotts, although there was no union label in existence then.

Mr Wilson:

– The honorable member ought to be ashamed to make the admission.

Mr Chanter:

– The British Medical Association boycotts.

Mr WATSON:

– Under the circumstances, I take a pride in making the statement. The members of the union to which I belonged found it necessary to boycott certain persons who were sweating their employes, and competing unjustly against fair employers. I was not at the time working for any of those affected. I was in a newspaper office, and it was only in jobbing offices that sweating occurred. What other weapon had the members of the union against the sweating and improper employment of children which was then taking place in such offices? There was no Arbitration Court in existence, no wages board, and no legal means of remedying the evils to which I have alluded.

What I said on that occasion bears out my contention that I was alluding to a boycott in the absence of union label provisions altogether - a boycott undertaken as an ordinary weapon of trade unionism with the view of remedying a condition of things which every fair-minded person in the community has admitted to be improper.

Mr Frazer:

– And in the absence of factories and similar legislation.

Mr WATSON:

– Quite so. The main point of my contention is that there is no word in the quotation from the Age newspaper which would justify the statement that I had admitted that these union label clauses would be used as a weapon for a boycott. I say that that is a gross and palpable piece of misrepresentation on the part of the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce. It is, however, on a par with the whole campaign of mendacity that has been entered upon with regard to these proposals. It appears to me as being the most unfair thing possible that people who are opposed to this policy should endeavour to bolster up their case in the fashion that they have done, and that I have exposed.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

– I should at all times be the last man in the House to justify an unfair construction being placed on the statement of any honorable member.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think that the honorable member for Bland himself will admit in his calm moments that his language was very loose.

Mr Watson:

– Not a word that I used justifies the statement made.

Mr KNOX:

– I shall take care that the Chamber of Commerce is made aware of this explanation. It will be communicated to that body. If the honorable member will allow me to have a few proof-slips of the speech which he hasjust made, I shall be happy to see that the Chambers of Commerce in Australia are made aware of his contradiction. If a wrong has been done to him he should have an opportunity of making a correction. I am surprised to learn that some of the protests against the trades union labour clauses, which I desire to read, were read during the night by the honorable member for Corangamite. I understand that he quoted them from newspapers. I have here only the original documents. I need not weary, the Committee by going through the various telegrams and letters that have come to me on the question; but I wish to put on record a digest of the objections urged by the various Chambers of Commerce -

Geelong. - Protests against the union label clauses in the Trade Marks Bill.

Adelaide. - An unjust and unwarrantable interference with freedom of traders framed to promote a system of boycotting and consequent growth of industrial terrorism and strife. If clauses passed suggests an amendment prohibiting boycotting or any form of interference with the lawful business of others and providing a penalty for such an offence.

Hobart. - Protests against any provisions by which other persons than the manufacturers or merchants (the owners of the goods) may dictate as to what mark or label shall be placed on such” goods.

Launceston. - Still strongly protests against the adoption of the trades union label, which may be used, not only to coerce workmen into unions, but also to coerce employers into industrial agreements which may be against the public interest.

Fremantle. - Strongly protests against union label clauses in Trade Marks Bill; if passed support new clauses by Knox and Johnson.

Perth. - Protests against any provisions by which other persons than manufacturers or merchants (the owners of the goods) may dictate as to what mark or label shall be placed on such goods.

Newcastle. - Oppose the Attorney-General’s proposed amendments, consider they would not mitigate in any way the evils apparent in the Bill, the main part of which would completely revolutionise the principles that have hitherto obtained with regard to trade marks, both statutory enactments and common law. Those proposing the change have the duty cast upon them of showing that the welfare of the Commonwealth and the exigencies of commerce call for legislation of such a pronounced character.

Rockhampton. - Protests against the passing of the Union Label.

Brisbane. - Again protests against the Union Label, industrial workers’ label, and the Commonwealth Label.

Sydney. - Opposes the union label’ as introducing quite a new principle resulting probably in class warfare and coercion.

I have also received a resolution of protest from the Victorian Reform League in the following terms : -

That the Council of the Reform League regards the Union Label clauses of the Trade Marks Bill as designed to give a minority of the workers a tyrannical power over their fellows, with the intention of enforcing compulsory unionism upon the large majority holding the just principle of freedom of contract. That such unjust and injurious legislation is intended to afford the means of boycotting the workers and distributers outside the unions, and the wares they may produce, is demonstrated by the text of the proposed clauses. This council protests against legislation at once dangerous and unjust as subversive of liberty and the well-being and peace of the community. It is also resolved that this council heartily approves of the Opposition members’ energetic and patriotic efforts to prevent the inclusion of the Trades Union Label provisions in the Trades Marks Bill, and hopes that those efforts will be continued unflinchingly until successful.

I have received the following communications from various representative bodies bearing upon the same point; -

Copy of resolution adopted by the Launceston Chamber of Commerce - “ That this Chamber strongly protests against the passing of the Trades Marks Bill, which would afford facilities for the registration of Trade Union Marks, which may be used not only to coerce workmen into unions, but also to coerce employes into industrial agreements, which may be against the public interests. This we contend has been the effect of similar legislation elsewhere.”

Adelaide Chamber of Commerce, Incorporated. 23 Waymouth-street,

Adelaide,9th August, 1905.

Trade Marks Bill.

I have the honour to inform you that at a special meeting of the above Chamber, held yesterday, the above Bill was discussed at length, and the following resolution was unanimously carried : - “ That the union label clauses in the Trade Marks Bill are calculated to promote and assist a system of boycotting whereby those engaged in commerce would be subjected to coercion and intimidation in the carrying on of their businesses. That such legislation cannot fail to bring about an improper and unjustifiable invasion of the rights of the individual, whether he be an employer or an employe. That such legislation is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. That if, unfortunately, the clauses referred to should be passed, steps should be taken to introduce an amendment into the Bill prohibiting boycotting or any form of interference with the lawful business of others, and providing a penalty for such an offence.”

I have the honour to be, sir, Your obedient servant,

John Creswell. 23 Waymouth-street,

Adelaide, 3rd October, 1905.

Dear Sir,

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 14th September, enclosing copy of proposed amendments to Trade Marks Bill, and in reply beg to state that same have had the consideration of the Committee of this Chamber, who can add nothing to their former protest of the 9th August with reference to the adoption of the trade union clauses.

They are of opinion that such legislation is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and they consider the constitutional question should be pressed home as much as possible. They also think it may be desirable for your Council to fortify Mr. Cussen’s opinions by the very best legal opinion to be obtained, so as to strengthen the hands of Mr. Knox’s party from a legal stand-point.

Yours faithfully,

John Creswell, Secretary.

The Launceston Chamber of Commerce. On the 8th ult. my Chamber adopted the following resolution : - “ That this Chamber strongly protests against the passing of the Trades Marks Bill, which would afford facilities for the registration of Trades Union Marks, which may be used not only to coerce workmen into unions, but also to coerce employers into industrial agreements which may be against the public interests. This we contend has been the effect of similar legislation elsewhere.” A copy of this resolution was forwarded to each representative for this State.

Brisbane Chamber of Commerce,

Brisbane, 5th October, 1905.

Copy of a resolution adopted by the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce on the 5th October, 1905 - “ This Chamber again protests against Part VII. of the Trade Marks Bill, and also against the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General dealing with the Union Label, Individual Workers’ Label, and Commonwealth Label, in fact, we consider the whole Act is quite unnecessary, and will be injurious to trade.

S.Larard, Secretary.

Copy of resolution adopted by the Rockhampton Chamber of Commerce : - “That in the opinion of this Chamber the new clauses relating to the Union Label in the Trade Marks Bill now before the Federal Parliament are a serious infringement of the rights and liberties of the people of the Commonwealth,” and this Chamber strongly protests against the passing of these clauses.”

Adopted11th October, 1905.

Thomas Parker, Secretary.

Rockhampton Chamber of Commerce, 11th October, 1905.

Inform president general council that Rockhampton Chamber Commerce strongly protests against new clauses relating to the union label in Trades Marks Bill.

Parker, Secretary.

Kalgoorlie Chamber of Commerce, 15th November, 1905.

Telegram in following terms sent yesterday by president to Sir John Forrest : - At meeting to-day resolution unanimously passed to request you use your influence in opposition to Union Label clauses in Trade Marks Bill,on the ground that it is pronounced class legislation, calculated to give an undue advantage to a small minority of workers. It infringes the principle of freedom of contract, and is fraught with great possible danger in the future.

Maughan, Chamber Mines.

Perth Chamber of Commerce, 22nd November, 1905.

Meeting merchants, manufacturers, traders, yesternight, passed following resolution : - This meeting records best thanks to Members House Representatives who are opposing union label clauses Trade Marks Bill as protest against legislation which will have ruinous effect trade commerce, and seriously interfere operations commercial men, no demand been made for such class legislation except by small section of community, and’ meeting trusts Bill will be rejected or withdrawn until constituencies have had opportunity expressing opinions upon it.

Conigrave, Secretary, Perth Chamber Commerce.

– I shall show the honorable member.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am not so hidebound as to be afraid to change my mind if I am shown to be wrong. I remember clearly and distinctly what I did say when speaking on the second reading. I then directed my attention particularly to the remarks of the honorable member for Corangamite, when I expressed the opinion that I did not think it at all necessary to go to the United States for illustrations of the effects of this particular class of legislation. I added that I intended to approach the question with an open mind ; and no further commitment Bid I make then, nor have I made up to the present’ time. To return to the merits of the proposal, what do we find? It is of no use talking about this as a trade union mark : that is done with. The original proposal which emanated from the Senate, was for a trade union mark pure and simple, and it was provided that none but trade unionists, or trade union organizations, should obtain registration. Under the present proposal, however, there is no restriction in the slightest degree. Even the honorable member for Kooyong, who is regarded as an extreme opponent of the measure, stated this morning thai: the present proposal of the Attorney-General, with the modifications which have been formulated, would be acceptable to him. Consequently there is not that great divergence of opinion to-day amongst membersof thisHouse that there appears to be amongst the public outside. The first question that occurs to my mind is whether there is any necessity at the present time in Australia for the workers to have the right to register trade marks? Then, if there is a necessity, is the Federal Parliament the proper authority to confer that right?

Mr Fisher:

– That is the point.

Mr.KENNEDY.- The right to use a label gives practically no advantage; and that is the whole difficulty. The workers of the United States have been chiefly cited in illustration; and some honorable members have gone so far as to say there are no industrial enactments there. In that, however, I think those honorable members are wrong, because there are a considerable number of industrial enactments in the United States to the advantage of the workers.

Mr Watson:

– As to the opinions previously expressed by the honorable member,

I may say that on the 8th August last, when dealing with this question, he is reported in Hansard as saying, in reply to a question by Mr. Reid as to whetherhe advocated the application of the principle to both parties -

Yes; and that is why, in a spirit of equality and fairness, I wish trade unions to have the right to register a union label just as an individual or corporation is given the right under this Bill.

Mr KENNEDY:

– Admittedly, I said that. I have also said that I am not so hide-bound as to be afraid to change my mind if shown to be wrong. The honorable member has not quoted the whole of what I said.

Mr Watson:

– I could quote more to the same effect.

Mr KENNEDY:

– I shall be delighted to hear the whole. However, I was referring to the United States ; and I wish to say that, in my opinion, the industrial conditions there, and the industrial conditions in Australia, are not at all analogous.

Mr McCay:

– Amongst the last words of the honorable member, when speaking on the second reading, were -

Consequently I approach the question with an open mind.

Mr KENNEDY:

– What would be the effect of turning non-unionists out of their employment, in order to make way for unionists ?

Mr WATSON:

– In some cases : but, as a rule, the question of the union label would not enter into consideration, because the goods are intended for consumption abroad. I now desire to refer to some of the remarks of the honorable member for Moira. I must say that, after having listened to what he stated in August last. I was very much surprised when I heard the speech of the honorable member. The honorable member stated to-day that’ he saw grave danger in adopting the proposals now before the House. In the previous case he informed the House that he possessed anopen mind, and I wish to read a few extracts from his utterances, which seem to me to indicate that he approved of the principle of the Bill. He said -

The position which I take up is that there is nothing obligatory upon any employer or upon any manufacturer, even if the whole of his employes are union men, to use the union label. No trader, commercial man, or manufacturer will use a trade mark unless there is some advantage from so doing.

Mr McCay:

– What is the advantage of using the union label?

Mr KENNEDY:

– What is the advantage of any trade mark? There is this advantage, from the industrial worker’s stand-point - that the union label puts him on an equality with any corporation or individual manufacturer in the community, who has a right to register a trade mark. It gives to the industrial worker through his organization a right to register a trade mark showing that the goods which he makes are produced entirely by union labour.

Mr McCay:

– What is the advantage to the manufacturer ?

Mr KENNEDY:

– It is another incentive to the honest employer -

That is ore of the main points upon which we rest our case.

What has been the object of the whole of our industrial legislation ? It is not restrictive on any fair employer; it is restrictive on the employer who resorts to illegitimate means in competition with the honest employer.

In reply to the right honorable member for East Sydney, who remarked that a fairminded employer, who had ninety unionists and ten non-unionists, could not use the label unless he dispensed with the ten non-unionists, the honorable member for Moira said -

If the whole of his employes are unionists, they can put no coercion upon him to use the label.

Later on the honorable member said -

I intend to propose an amendment to the effect that any individual or corporation who becomes the proprietor of a registered trade mark, and who does anything whatever in restraint of trade in the article to which that trade mark is applied, shall have the registration cancelled forthwith.

That is a very proper suggestion, and seems to have been the only one put forward by the honorable member in criticism of the measure. In reply to a question by the right “honorable member for East Sydney as to whether he would apply the principle to both parties, the honorable member said -

Yes ; and that is why in a spirit of equality and fairness I wish trade unions to have the right to register a union label, just as an individual or corporation is given the right under this Bill.

Just before the conclusion of his speech the honorable member said -

So far as I can understand the situation, it was admitted by all that the efforts of trade unions have been directed towards the uplifting of the industrial elements in Australia, and to placing them on an equality with other classes. That is the sole object of this trade union proposal. Consequently I approach the question with an open mind. Up to the present, however, I have nol heard of anything to prevent me from supporting the Bill. I trust that when we get into Committee if any provision is found to be necessary to safeguard the interests of all, we shall be found perfectly willing to insert it in the Bill.

Mr Spence:

– Do not very much the same conditions obtain to-day ?

Mr CONROY:

– Does the honorable member mean fo suggest that the conditions of life are not very much better now than they were half a century ago? If so, I cannot debate with him, because he will first require to study the children’s history books. I find that an Act passed during the reign of Edward III. decreed “ That all artificers and people of mysteries shall each choose his own mystery before the next Candlemass ; and that, having so chosen it, he shall henceforth use no other.” In Parliament after Parliament, some of the little unions in England were so strong that they secured an absolute control of these matters. As evidencing how my illustration tells against the pet belief of honorable members in the Labour corner, I have only to draw attention to the fact that they have nearly deserted the Chamber. The same condition of affairs existed up till the seventeenth century. The reason why these laws have been abandoned is that they were found to injure the very class whom they were designed to benefit. If we were asked to allow goods to be labelled “ Made only by Protestants,” or “ Made only by Catholics,” does not every honorable member see that it would be our duty to step in and prevent such a thing? So far from such a practice promoting, peace among the community, it would be a source of injury to its members. We ought not to allow any body to use a label practically for the purpose of boycotting their fellow citizens. So much was ‘it recognised that men ought to belong to one guild only that I find in Brentano, on Guilds and Trades Unions, the following, in reference to a period as late as 1434: -

Will you bear, however, what is ordained by Imperial law. Our forefathers have not been fools. The crafts have been devised for this purpose, that everybody by them should earn his daily bread, and nobody shall interfere with the craft of the other. By this the world gets rid of its misery, and every one may find his livelihood.

I repeat that this kind of legislation has been tried in the past and has utterly failed. It has been abandoned because it has been proved to be injurious to the community. A reversion to it must result in greater evil to the class whom it is designed to benefit than to any other. I have no hesitation, therefore, in voting against this clause. If, however, it isaccepted, I shall at least give my assent to the amendment of the honorable and learned member for Cori- nella. If the honorable member for Bland is sincere in his desire to limit its application to the cases which he has indicated he will support that proposal.

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

-Iamsorry that the honorable member for Bland is not in the Chamber, because there are one or two matters upon which he dwelt to which I desire to refer. In the first place, I have to congratulate the honorable member for Moira and the honorable member for Gippsland upon at last having secured a breach in the obstinate silence that prevailed upon the opposite side of the House. After twenty-four hours of close debate, that silence was broken, not by a Minister, but by the present champion,guide, protector, and friend of the Ministry - the leader of the Labour Party. I have heard most of the debate which has taken place during the past twenty-four hours, and I think it was due to those who have criticised the Government proposal that some reply to their representations should have been made earlier. However, that is a matter for the determination of honorable members concerned, although it is open to criticismby others. The honorable member for Moira and the honorable member for Gippsland have at last succeeded in forcing one honorable member opposite to attempt some defence of the position which is taken up by those who sit upon the right of Mr. Speaker. Isay “attempt” some defence, because I regret that the honorable member for Bland avoided the real questions at issue in connexion with this amendment, just asdid the speech which he delivered a week or two back. Unfor tunately, too,hefell into some serious errors of fact.Early in his speech he stated that the Trade Marks’ Bill had been debated for something like four weeks, and that most of the discussion upon it had been directed against its union label provisions. As a matter of fact, up till the present moment the Bill has been debated just eight and a half days, and out of that time two days were spent in discussing the other portions of the measure.

Mr Spence:

– There was some debate upon the second reading before that.

Mr McCAY:

– Inclusive of the debate upon the second reading, only six and a half days have been devoted to the consideration of this very important question. As I understand that honorable members would be enabled to catch their trains if I ceased speaking, I ask leave to continue my remarks on Tuesday next.

Mr EWING:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Richmond · Protectionist

– Perhaps the honorable member for Macquarie will make a statement.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The Minister can announce what has been done.

Mr McCay:

– What is the arrangement?

Mr EWING:

– An arrangement has been arrived at that this debate shall be adjourned now-

Mr Henry Willis:

– This is a backdown on the part of the Government.

Mr EWING:

– Honorable members may take any view of the matter that they think fit. The arrangement is that the consideration of this Bill must be completed on Tuesday night, so that the Senate may be able to take it up on Wednesday. At the present time the other Chamber has no work before it. I am empowered by the Prime Minister to make this statement.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am perfectly willing to consent to the arrangement which has been announced by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. I think that the arrangement made is as fair as we could expect, having in. view the attitude of the Government throughout the whole of the proceedings on this Bill.

Mr Frazer:

– Who made the arrangement ?

Mr Ewing:

– The Prime Minister.

Mr Frazer:

– I am against it.

Mr. McCAY (Corinella). - I understand that some arrangement has been arrived at to adjourn after the long sitting we have had, and to meet again on Tuesday. If that be the case, I am prepared to promise two things : the first is to stop now, and the second to be brief on Tuesday. I understand that the deputy leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister wish to make some further announcement to the Committee, and I give way to enable them to do so.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).- The result of recent cogitations, as I understand it. is that it has been arranged that we are to leave now to catch our trains, on the understanding that on Tuesday, not only shall the debate on this stage of the Bill be finished1, but that the third reading shall also be carried through this House.

Mr Spence:

– That is a fair thing.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not know; I am not particular about it. I have no wish to adhere to the arrangement if the Government wish to withdraw from it. It is quite open to them to do so, if they so desire. We on this side are not suppliants in any sense of the word. But it occurred to me that the arrangement made was a reasonable one, having in view the action of the Government throughout the whole of the debate on this measure. I gave it my support as a fair proposal in all the circumstances of the case. That is all I have to Say.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– It appears to hie that the proposal made is fair, and that it offers a reasonable method for a final determination upon this measure. But, unfortunately, under a misapprehension, so far as we are_ concerned, the announcement was made -a-t the wrong tin-ie-and in the wrong way. That is not a matter for which honorable members opposite are responsible. I was approached suddenly, gave a hastyanswer, and before any time for the consideration I expected was allowed the announcement was prematurely made to the Committee. The proposal is a fair one, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we are willing to accept it. I am sure that honorable members will realize the great difference it makes in the progress of the measure. If “The proposition submitted last night had been accepted, we should have closed” this debate on Tuesday, and after that there would have followed the other stages of the Bill, which would require to be taken in order, and so as the amendments promised by the AttorneyGeneral could be made. In ordinary circumstances it would be a sanguine anticipation to expect that they could all have been dealt with before Wednesday.

At all events, we have gained at least one day, and consequently I consider that a satisfactory arrangement has been made.

Progress reported.

page 6188

APPROPRIATION BILL

Assent reported.

page 6188

CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL

Bill returned from the Senate with a message stating that it insisted upon its amendment In clause 3, to which the House of Representatives had disagreed, and agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives on the Senate’s amendments in clause 16.

Ordered -

That the Senate’s message be considered forthwith.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– The ‘Senate amended clause 3 of this Bill by including in the definition of “ dwelling “ “ any ship or vessel registered in Australia on a passage between any two Commonwealth ports.” We disagreed with that amendment, and, in the absence of the Minister in charge, I suppose it is necessary that we should insist on that disagreement. The question involved is whether people on board ship shall be counted at the time of the census. The Senate has claimed that people on board ship at sea shall be counted, but whether in the State which the ship has left, or in the State to which it is going, is not determined. The Statisticians, agree that the Senate’s proposal will create difficulty in the compilation of the statistics. To save time, I, therefore, venture to move -

That the House insists upon its disagree, ment with the Senate’s amendment.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– If the amendment is lost, the result will be that a very large number of sea-faring persons will be disfranchised. Under present arrangements, a Customs officer goes on board a ship, and ascertains how many persons are on board, but no schedules are filled up, we are not even able to- ascertain the nationality of those persons, and they have no means of getting their names on the rolls, unless when they arrive at their destination, they make special application. The same facilities should be afforded to people on board ships to secure the inclusion of their names on the electoral rolls as are afforded to others. I think that the amendment made by the Senate proposes only what is fair. I point out that our statistics cannot possibly be accurately compiled, unless we can ascertain the nationality of every person on board ships. I hope that the House will not insist on its disagreement with the amendment.

Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist

– This is not a vital matter, as the census is not likely to be taken for some five or six years. The report made to me showed that the Senate’s amendment would involve administrative difficulties, and that the object sought to be accomplished by it might possibly have been achieved under another clause of the Bill. For these reasons we asked the Senate to reconsider the matter. I do not know whether we shall be able to accomplish what the honorable member for Hindmarsh desires, but on making further inquiries, I think that the amendment might be agreed to- When the Statistician is appointed under the Bill, he will go through its provisions, and will probably be. able to offer suggestions for the taking of a complete census of Australia. In the meantime, T would ask the House not to insist on its disagreement with the Senate’s amendment.

Mr Deakin:

– I ask leave to withdraw my motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That the House do not insist upon its disagreement with the Senate’s amendment.

House adjourned at 4.10 p.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 November 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1905/19051130_reps_2_29/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives30 November 1905

APPROPRIATION BILL

QUESTION

NAVAL DEFENCE

Mr HIGGINS:NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr HENRY WILLIS:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF HARVESTERS

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SALMON:LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

QUESTION

FORTNIGHTLY PAYMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Mr RONALD:SOUTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH WIRES: ADELAIDE

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

TRADE MARKS BILL

Mr ISAACS:Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Higgins:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Thomas:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Frazer:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Lonsdale:

Mr Tudor:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Lonsdale:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Liddell:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Conroy:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Mauger:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Liddell:

Mr Watson:

Mr Deakin:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Higgins:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Watson:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Glynn:

Mr Watson:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Lonsdale:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr McLean:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Glynn:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr ISAACS:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Higgins:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Robinson:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Kelly:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Kelly:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Higgins:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Higgins:

Mr ISAACS:

House of Representatives
30 November 1905

Mr HIGGINS:
NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr RONALD:
SOUTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DAVID THOMSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP