716 T?E ECONOMIC JOURN? the Unions in New Zealand. In his speech a't the labour con- ference, he said, 'It is quite incorrect to say that we requested that the Union Company should withdraw from the Shipowners' Association . . . we 'knew that the Union Company must keep in with that association so as to prevent them from interfering with their trade.' No other combination of employers was formed in this country until after the strike commenced. The natural conclusion is that the aggression of labour forced em- ployers to combine in self defence. Before entering upon the subject of the strike itself the rela- tions of the unions to one another should be understood. In New Zealand the Maritime Council was the supreme body; to it all the unions, Seamen's, Vv'harf labourers, Carriers, &c. &c., were 'affiliated, as also the Marine Officers--of which more presently. The Maritime Council was in its turn affiliated to the Maritime Council of Australia. All this elaborate organization had quite recently been completed, a fact which is significant when the question arises as to who were the aggressors. The Maritime Council of New Zealand consisted of five persons, and though not representative of all the affiliated unions, was generally recog- nized as such. Its secretary, and the for some time dictator of New Zealand, was Mr. J. A. Millar. With regard to the affiliation of the Mercantile Marine 0fficers' Association with the Maritime Council it will be necessary to refer to the Australian strike. In doing this I cannot do better than refer those interested to Mr. Champion's article in the ?i?eteenth Century of April last on the Crushing Defeat of Trades in Australia; h!s description of the blind loyalty of the unions to their leaders ?n Australia and the utter want of the sense of responsibility shown by those leaders will apply equally well to New Zealand. In Mr. Champion's article it will be seen that ' the shipowners refused to consider the claims of the marine officers until they withdrew from their alliance with the men under their command.' For this action our Union Company, which was a member of the Association, was held responsible in New Zealand,. and the fact that they had refused to recognize the right of their officers to affiliate with the Maritime Council, while they them- selves had joined the Shipowners' Association, was the most effective argument against the company the union leaders used. The Company's defence can be inferred from the words in italics. quoted from Mr. Champion's article ' under their command.' The events which led to the strike here can be very shortly
