William Morris Hughes: a political biography. 9780207137464

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
List of Abbreviations (page xiii)
I. Wales and London (page 1)
II. The University of Hard Knocks (page 13)
III. Introduction to Politics (page 23)
IV. Labor in the Making (page 34)
V. Member for Lang (page 58)
VI. The Federal Fight (page 78)
VII. On the Waterfront (page 99)
VIII. A Nation is Born (page 112)
IX. Foundations of Policy (page 128)
X. Three Elevens (page 154)
XI. Down to the Sea (page 177)
XII. "The Case for Labor" (page 205)
XIII. Riding the Whirlwind (page 216)
XIV. In the Saddle (page 240)
XV. The Jibbing Horse (page 257)
XVI. "Packing" the High Court (page 271)
XVII. Deadlock (page 284)
Select Bibliography (page 303)
Index (page 309)

Citation preview

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES l

THAT FIERY PARTICLE

1862-1914

;Dope =. BAO, ; ie : sy S ae " - peas ee a

=ioFSS Be s: ~[ooh OE es “Og. Sa ER Bee 20 Capo 2 : £2 2 2 e fos OS o° Sb SeSr: ;: oO (SUSE ae Bog oe"3epee 32aea FE ae eos z ae: = ES : res eee # “OY 2 . os, . ae : l) See . oe nee ie EES _= ::=:1aRRR REE Bb AOE ee .: Se “Shea cnet anh tetra OMS Ace TR ERE OE cut Se Lee aes elas SR ec Seg REISE EEL a ee ; . . Bees NE RRO cc

te eee:) S. oe Rg ae "8 3Vo aae aeee ee : Le Tp Se aPo ae eee aa 3ae3ee a . r Re esBe ,eS “SEs eee pee -Z . [SRS eee RR . ES bo I SE face J * 353 ee (fa dy . 2.oe 7° SS ee ARS SsNee oes wes URES SRR eRRa°.: °ee Se SRS SSSR Sa aaa y Ba, = Bie 6 oe P ™ Bee SEER SEE NESS of es ERS a oe en oa 4 Se OF ; SERRE Se SO : a: Sy iyo Bee earner oS ee ' 2,2S Se Bee Se ees RSENS oe 7 :53 BekaaVS otpeters” oe eee2 ee ce Toss oS. 7 LASS RRR

7 a Bs: Oo Bee>beSES eR Sseae Beets: Be: SS Jagr.: : Eee “Se TE 0EE Raa eee as [es Boek aeeeoe i Toop ee . I oa BBD SN Res: Seg aoe (ot — aS a a ay See ia . : . ; ER Sa Pee : Be ees ah AE s . * : SS ESS a SRS [Se eS Recieocc tie s, a To Slackessseiean ch ° ‘ae+3 Re ie ee Sohaa>BR ae ee Eo CS PS Ss “SERRE toc Ey ce Bee OEE SSE eeSe a ain SOR ORO eooe.

= eS aafe aSPSS ooPoo : be >ee ESSE Seen ceeee ea ee ES tage ee ee Se Sg SS SESE shes: -Pers Mee. Magee = sae Re CS 2°ge PSS Se nS MLE ESE TO ~ conta ieRs aa ae 23 ES. Qe EE wen BT Bi eaten Se || BE Re oe: 2 OY SEES BALES SSS up SEES A a SEES EE ioe Re: TCSII gE OU ee REESE RS Bo Ba ROS EEN CE ae. ee SOMES UES ESET) UD ES BES ESwe Set oeSoe 2 EL agSE. cep JO SEES EERE GE

eo SORES gy opeRoc ETT RE SR ed” JE estaeS 7 ESR :bo co ONES VU Bae a _—. “EES . =. OSB ah. go ge oeCeLNEREESSSE Pe aakeRRR SSR eS oScee we SAE ED . SS SEEN "coh SS oo 22BL Lasts: we 0ee wk: eae2 a. “3 cee ee See ee ee EE SED RES SSE Ag Ro SR ooo (EOS OE a a RE gas Ae ee % IBRD CEN EEE ESETE “3 =Prec Rese ES Eo,SSR AEE “Eee Beso So ae oo te aea oes

Beeoe eGae . ee ° ; Ee Sete once eR Se sO Or : rete mento SS ae . SBS SESEeRe SETTER wa Bee eee oe ec ee PRS. - F . ":P4P3“y SESS q Se ae Seoe ESC een eh aa . Soe het a j ee. x3J 4 SBE apee OR —ee

*32as RRA bc pe Se gah _ ae eosaaa be Se. EESEEESEOs Stat ee a et otoly, Senha 2 7thay 1 RR RRS

SSR Bette pte eS LS ne Sg. Scr es RES Sots NT hee goat ead tgcee SELo ee ee ee SetBER Batson

SSeS Pc aa—eea pee SSGR rs So . oS BERR ee Be 2 eee SOR RE as ee ce . EES er eee

Sageehenat ea a eee URS eS ORR. Oop € oh . BREE NR COR ERR ie oh ace * BRReer ENcco aee eee ee ae i ea ccaRR OURO ARR ON Soaoe ee SE ae Sd ae ee ea Ss Be Srce,CAO OR Boe

SS ees aeeecaETS See ES Ss So “BESSA UNSER SRR eee ope coneSE esc ere SU Lee aeSS ee 7FOSS aE ERS “Rea Sea Sc oRhE gaaTEMES Beet di Signe Ss ROSE SIS lh ia. . CORSE RS She 777 11 ESS RSS Rescate ene ONS Soar SR AN Sree ON TSE OOS a See SOCSE SR ee aaa

ee ee eS espe es ee Ser pe heESR eeeaaRe eeea | 2!Ts 3° 33 :Sa So Sac

;

: ee See SURE es Se ne ge te.aSek Ses iF F “4 ie 2eee See : sii Gee penne SEES Ro Z

ies eae Sates ka ; Pe

bene ae Ses esJS y Ss ; = GEC. ee. NUR ee ee ae EEE Tsa Saas EES eee eaSess See Saintes :33Ba ens eS RoR aS cs SN soar ee RN SS ee(Oh RRSRELR S Cea 2S ea

ee. “ROR SEER ee Re

eo, pee gies aN eo eehee ee ei“aPRE Gone es RE

poo aeeee ee re RR, “SR SBE nS eee e :; Bec ee Be OS: ee . eeq

* . Be =Boo Se ~SZ es :=‘. : BE TSP us wey : — 3

eT 7: *

x

hes « )

Wo OM. lluyg CS oc, TQT2

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY

i THAT FIERY PARTICLE 1862 - [914 by

L. F. FITZHARDINGE

Sz ANGUS AND ROBERTSON

First published in 1964 by ANGUS & ROBERTSON LTD 89 Castlereagh Street, Sydney 54 Bartholomew Close, London 107 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUE CARD NO. 64-25695

Copyright 1964

L. F. Fitzhardinge

Registered in Australia for transmission by post as a book PRINTED IN AUSTRALIA BY HALSTEAD PRESS, SYDNEY

Preface THE oRIGIN of this work goes back in a sense to 1940 when, having just finished the account of Sir Littleton Groom’s political life published as part of Nation Building in Australia, and being on the staff of the National Library, I was introduced by the late Sir George Knowles, Commonwealth Solicitor-General, to Mr Hughes, then Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy. Hughes was looking for someone to collect, under his supervision, materials for a book on his life, though whether the eventual product was to be an autobiography or an authorized biography was never very clear. I undertook the work, but after two years, as a result of increasing war pressures and the rather unsatisfactory character of the arrangement, it was laid aside. In 1945 I moved to Sydney and out of the field of Australian history, and though Hughes was often in my mind—no one with even

slight contact with him was likely to forget him—I had no thought of further work on him. Hughes, meanwhile, made arrangements, none of which were successful, with a succession of other aspirant biographers, two of whom produced books which he disowned. He himself dictated the two volumes of reminiscence, Crusts and Crusades and Policies and Potentates.

When in 1950 I was about to return, with my appointment to the Australian National University, to a professional concern with Australian

history, I remembered the material I had gathered when working with Hughes, and put it into a paper for the Royal Australian Historical Society.

Hughes was present at the reading of this paper, and gave me some comments on my manuscript, so when, twelve months later, it was published in the Society’s journal I sent him a copy as a matter of courtesy. An urgent

and imperious summons to Parliament House followed: Hughes, rather to my surprise, was extremely flattering, and urged me to drop everything else and devote my full time to his biography. I demurred, and referred him to my Vice-Chancellor, Sir Douglas Copland. The result was an arrangement between the University and Hughes that, so far as was compatible with my other duties, I should write his biography with his assistance and

with full access to his papers. Before much progress had been made, Hughes’s death on 28th October 1952 intervened. The arrangement that had been made, however, was confirmed by his executors and Dame Mary, and after the inevitable delays a number of trunks and tea-chests of papers

arrived in Canberra. These had been presented by Dame Mary to the National Library of Australia with the proviso that I should have first and unrestricted access for the biography, and Mr H. L. White, the National Vv

PREFACE

Librarian, kindly allowed me to keep those that I required at the National University. The papers were in great confusion, especially those relating to the years prior to 1918, and it soon became clear that there were many gaps and that the work would take much longer than had been anticipated. The work of sorting occupied until 1956. In 1957 I was able to spend some months

in Great Britain tracing Hughes’s early life in London, Llandudno, and Llansantffraid, and working on his visits to England in 1916 and 1918 and

on the Peace Conference of 1919. On my return to Canberra in 1958 I commenced the actual writing, which has been my main, though not my only, occupation since. A work which has been spread over so many years must be in a very real sense a co-operative project. To mention by name all those who have assisted me at various times with information, criticism, and encouragement would be impossible, and to select invidious. Some are referred to in the notes, but I here ask them all to accept my most grateful thanks, and hope that they will recognize their respective contributions to the book and think that their trouble has been justified. I must thank the authorities of the Australian National University, the National Library of Australia, and the Perpetual Trustee Company for their

forbearance during what must at times have seemed an unreasonably protracted work. I hope they, too, will think it has been worth while in the end, I owe a special debt to my colleagues in my own and other Departments

at the Australian National University, and especially to Sir Keith Hancock and Professor Geoffrey Sawer, both of whom, besides giving much other help, have found time to read and criticize the whole book in draft. Miss

Judith Robinson and Mrs Joan Lynravn have also read the whole work and made many helpful suggestions.

I would thank, too, the staff of the National Library of Australia, especially Mr C. A. Burmester and Mrs Pauline Fanning, and the staff of the Mitchell Library for their unfailing assistance when called on, and the Institutes of Historical Research and of Commonwealth Studies in the University of London for their hospitality. The biographer of Hughes must face certain special difficulties. Hughes did not pour out his mind on paper, like Gladstone or Deakin; indeed he seems to have been wary of writing, and preferred to do business by word

of mouth and often through third parties. Nor did he bare his soul to intimates, who might have revealed the man as Boswell did Dr Johnson. His papers contain mainly letters to him, and few of his own have come to light elsewhere. The portrait must be drawn almost wholly from external sources. The public face is fully documented: the inner man can only be inferred. Of his domestic life little has been said, partly for lack of records, vi

PREFACE

but mainly because throughout his life his main interests and preoccupations

were political, and his private life was important only as a background to his public career. Hughes was, and is, a man about whom neutrality is impossible. He exercised strong attraction and strong repulsion—often (as in my own case) alternately on the same person. I have not been concerned to defend or attack him, but have tried, as well as I could, to display him in action in the context of his time and circumstances, leaving the reader to judge for himself. L. F. FrrzHarpbINce.

Canberra, 26th January 1963.

Vil

Contents

List of Abbreviations Xili Page

I. Wales and London I

Chapter

Il. The University of Hard Knocks 13

III. Introduction to Politics 23

IV. Labor in the Making 34

V. Member for Lang 58 VI. The Federal Fight 78 VII. On the Waterfront 99 VI. A Nation is Born 112

IX. Foundations of Policy 128

X. Three Elevens 154

XI. Down to the Sea 177

XII. “The Case for Labor” 205 XIII. Riding the Whirlwind 216

XIV. In the Saddle 240

XV. The Jibbing Horse 257

XVI. “Packing” the High Court 271

XVII. Deadlock 254 Select Bibliography 303

Index 309

Illustrations

W. M. Hughes c¢. 1912 frontispiece

William Hughes XIV

Jane Hughes XIV

W. M. Hughes, aged about four I W. M. Hughes as a Volunteer, 1884 I

School Group, Llandudno I Pitt Street in the Nineties 34

Sydney in 1888 35

Hughes’s Shop in Balmain 35

The New South Wales Parliamentary Labor Party, 1895 50

“Not so Comfortable as it Looks” 51

“A Tower of Strength” 82

Lower Sussex Street 83 The Wharf Labourers’ Float 98

Delegates to the Interstate Labor Conference, 1900 99

The Watson Ministry 99 The Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, 1906-10 130 The Merchant Shipping Conference, London, 1907 130

W. M. Hughes in London, 1907 131 “What Will Happen to Those Free Men?” 146

“A Hard Case for Labor” 147

“The Mediator” 147 xi

ILLUSTRATIONS

“Labor’s Aim” 178

“Billy and the Bull” 179

“Conquered” 194

“Stull Waiting” 195 Fisher Ministry, 29th April 1910 to 24th June 1913 226

Mary Hughes 227 “Counsel’s Opinion” 242

“No Thoroughfare” 243

x1

Abbreviations Used in Footnotes A.].P.H. Australian Journal of Politics and History

A.L.P. Australian Labor Party C.A.R, Commonwealth Arbitration Reports C.H.B.E. Cambridge History of the British Empire C.L.R. Commonwealth Law Reports C.P.D. Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates

DT. Daily Telegraph (Sydney) Hist. Stud. Htstorical Studies: Australia and New Zealand

I.W.W. Industrial Workers of the World | RAAS. Journal... of the Royal Australian Htstorical Society N.S.W.A.R. New South Wales Arbitration Reports N.S.W.P.D. New South Wales Parliamentary Debates

P.P. Parliamentary Paper (unless otherwise indicated, these are Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers).

S.W.L.U. Sydney Wharf Labourers’ Union (later Waterside Workers’ Federation, Sydney Branch).

S.M.H. Sydney Morning Herald W.W.E. Waterside Workers’ Federation All other books are cited in the notes after their first appearance by the surname of the author, with shortened title where more than one work by the same author has been cited, or by short title if there is no author; except

that Hughes’s own books are cited by short title only, e.g. Crusts and Crusades. Articles are cited after the first reference by the author’s surname,

journal, volume and page, e.g., Nairn, /.R.4.4.S., XLVIII, 81. Volumes are shown in large roman, parts or chapters in small roman, and pages in arabic numerals, without prefix, except in the case of law reports, where the usage is followed of showing the volume by a prefixed arabic numeral, and of Historical Studies, where the reference is given to parts by arabic numerals with the prefix “No.”

“Labor” is so spelt when it forms part of the proper name of the Australian Labor Party, or stands for it.

X11

: sie Lo EBA Seovets Ms . isle, Seo oeEL teeEg CERES ho Wik ESSE - Wes Po PSSESio Ansel nh Shite oct eeIBSE ed “ela ee leeSSN RRS Ee Ee : Sete 20oseinope os eo .am wee :% RP nae-: 220h SOREL : the oresneedle Lich ARRSEOMIS Siaee Bete Sc DSSS SES Sesine i SAho CSS Oneon SeyGe

+aieSATS Bas Sede: OE ve SS 1. CEE SESE ng:eg SEES 1 BOS ESS ee SRI SER RSE OSEEE ts,UTES ne . :aones : .on 5 pet Eee ‘UTETREE LSSOS usie REG POSES aSoh) SSS ee Se ee Ss Se SSE eeEP +“COM >HEED sOTER . eeONES . MES CATT, ree TPSED TEESE [ibe ne LSE JTEES SSSR US ANEESESsee Se aSo SS ag “hye Se heat! aeeeoS°ISL °SeISEERLe© SEE US SERRE aos En Se oy reSSSR eee DE

foeTess Poe be “ES ERS ioe 02Bilas eseeEE TS ee Se ee eee :“ERs oe : :snl! - Tn. EER Sob EERE EES ae i Bee erClBAM Sr SESE th SESE Gon SREy DO7 EGS Sh ai 20 3 a Ube 2oe ee ee a ee ee5eee ee eeRes ee ee SRE Toeee gg

DOE ERPS 2 aa *MERA ae ae : SPURTE Poee: ar,(OO HE Se PRPS UU nih, UE TIES cee ctu pe TOURER Beet AAS eyaegis :2Bs “ Ege a REE . OSURES 7 SER OESES GAKSRY oNet ESte oth Eee eggRS PORES Ro 7ES Pear 7cate . a+ Psoki ihe Peete geEN SEREEESEY ett SERIE i p Shikkan to Inns ne) SE ELE : :.éSage Bek wes en. Poon, Shite eae ets SES IGEESS 7aWR SRR ea ZShe aaEE eSoe : ne . oBs . faa LL TER eeESR | SOEs ah US cal eo) todh OPage cUEUDESIRESLE SE Thies wee Che ee SA. EN: CES wo EeREE : ar ee aan Lo. ee woe POUR SELES ES SE Se SET HEE DP et 4)TDP SED ESPTe SSE SRE Seetgh Sie SEES

ae a Bea as a - ; ee we ee a

SEES : _ : 1 ‘ oe F. whe : . Bs . ~ : mh - Oe ee 2 USE WER TRUS se Bb an Rae a Rios (PERSE See Se cee ae oat ane Sees ee

ERMC la to oh : - . 4 . eae ee ee ee ae TR nF a ee WEES AS mo .Eee 2S te:ae EEE Cewee s. LG “ns : en rr. bee : se Qsoe ae .. co PES . sige .ERASE * he 7 gh Be fg, ENS ae ;.oe : ER a CEES eg s Be BERS Seo Th Sat oe LER Se ne or > on ht Beg . : : se. SAEs SedSERGE: ES ee .ane . 2.eee OER iS : Sh : : ee Foc BEE te "ORE CE :Ss LURE fa peed .Sigos : *ay: SSE ay pei iES Bip : : : eS, ; .. weak OT eng BE = BLS Sun TM: ee . ; ah : : : : “ SERRA UR St ERR SSE EN © Te ih RY RR] 7 ES ES SS, Se SEE

= SRE RRS ss-sae :Pe See _ had Sek Z;F:node alae Ieee eee .:RE ee So: aa. Se soho ey es 7SRE --TE F:To. Be oe“so . TREES 2 ao Sf eresTURES :Ee ERPS “Se Te :LE ee ee ns:Seen 7.aewes “oy Somes : Bon

ah hc. oe ee oy. a ee. ee “es ea ae

BOEeSEP ae oe : : SERS SoRate SREelena cd OEa TER Seen: ented . en se EE eetLee : VEE See TR : 2. ES RRBSPREE a 7 - rseee, ‘ ree ao TER to RRR CM O TRS ey Pe ce aan : ares a ee Sans Eero x . re © Ne Tee en F : SS, SESE ES cea LEER BREE 7 ORB ws he a Sees SSR a Tish Le BS SIRT :acane : -2 < Oh) ae eeSERA SonetntLo) EEE 5 ..-ae ee"& 5 Seca em. :: .= coed . Bee U0 SSR: -ee See SEMEL. unis UE Se ERR cop) SE HE, ETSEAR lsTERIAL TSEn. : : ee eee ee : HS ee ; “ . on :*;4:-:3rs.i 7 SRR aBS iemS oo fs ae eos -:eS cs ;De : ae sit oe se ae ALS 2~5oe .ve re ,:wet 4 "SR SR a z =e s .zi 3 Fi Si SRR a ft E. SS ° : no roe eee cc a a fe . 7 : Res eT = ay ee ee ae a Re ORES : : : my a ene [hs SESS cS SR a SE oe : aeons . a 2 Pra ST RRR RaRSra ey= eine CS: 2oa ae 2 aeae i °:PePees ee 7 LEcise EE SeSEL ee eee CRORE BSS RR cs So

PR een SS eo EEE se CEES ee ee Sader [SEee Ee - SERS atJe oe getse EEE a :2S ESSER mea SESS SeRRR Ge aRG cao iSN eeaSate aSeen, a=3eee Emenee CORN Be:ome AE ee TEES RRS SS a1 Seer eth IER seoe Ee 2 Eo Ss SUL IS tt. ":a:RepbpEei 5art RSS Sa APIS RES a” aem fia acces, Soy ae > USES a5Ue SESE ES ee BeOS he aSS ne ee eee .OS nN ee eeeS | ae SEES RS SR Tt Pee SOME So)” Sea .aT :URES 7. SAE? SEERA SST. st igo TEE ot. eee ° SS ee ee SAEED RE See ” PERE foo DE SL Ba oS 2 een Oe Sais” Rae ee ee it ge ee en Stee . roe EE Se ee a pe ee eae BN 2 RE REE tpn SE a eee is fg 7 ,SeJRE SSSEE OS ee aPsi Sotcr NE ee See . Be 2- Bram _ot neha ee CSREES | ERneeSASS SS PA Ph Be edSSeaBEER a rake Ronse See Soni Se a Races Se eae SRR a! SEE EEE ean Oo ee ri RO CS Eg . a oe

6 JESS. CEEEESSES EE ROSS RS RSS eR ee+) i,yaaa eS eer Soe RRM ROGER, ct RR SOC eM TESS Suc) GREEEEE oe a - ae CRT SEESSE iguanas Se SERRE ES SRS aan .. .2) TISSEAESS por SeeSSS EEE LO+ohens So. Wee IEeS no Sh ASE5ee es eeSee REET Sa aieft AUR O S Ae: Meee ot, : OOS RA eS ae ES ol, ae ee ot :.: RRR : SES) SSIES aSee eRGEN Doeeenes:: : Seco oR RES RRR SET SERS So LS SRPe ECSn Se eyORS a RON ath aRe foly aISat nuntee = Pep RC ieee ae SR a See eres SAR Sete ee RE re arn : OREN BYR cn ne nae os ane os SEES . state TURES oe" SSR an - a - : PES Sas eee gees ESSE SRR 0 Soraeee ee eee (JERE, US Se SE ee 5 Bet So eae oe ee Ss SySES bs

we Specht Se SESS SES Ree ee eee a a

: ESE TEs STEERS te 7: Mipaneememnat EUReaSRY Roa aBremer SR REO .CSE SSSR ESR RNS SHES Ee > hoi SEER RR anet er7 eh Sie SAE Sok Skate aaa Eee giSteere Se eee nS SE RRR Se eae aS oR .. .woe 2 ci OR enten Sacer Sans eanSES SE” OR ee cS ORR Ne Se Sige esac 7se! ore - 2 :IELTS RRR Sgeceane SERS StS Se Sapa osPEER oa Berane gan ee

::*arene SESS Se Sea ae SUR Pose ee ata ee SR oe a “ =DUIS SR Sa RRO NR” ORS earn nae eeRR ae BREESE SIE Rc r Ca eCR ono 5.:fof :.PEREIRA SI OR Gt SON oo tide vennc ut eee Oe ORRN SOREN SicaSOR NR ROR SSR SEN CTCL SO RON NERD eR cn nnae AR a .i-sas Lee MRR SS 3 fe ee SE. ERE SS ee rc RGR EEE SS OS i acine, a OY CREST SEE Seas SESE RS SRT ciacic etSS rage et ieee egne LS Si.es ee ROR eS [ERS a OS SSR oe tie See Tol BERS ee SESE eee CR sea -Sato 2“oss :LcPS 2A ES RSE ERR Rui. «| SERRE SRE See ee es eR nae SS TE RR Benes Cae eee CERES 2 ES Se eS Sees ae Sees See a oe we = Se RE ERR SEEIRRS Ss oc Se SES Ee - Reencmaenn er copes sa a a LEER SOOO ROT sear

‘y5

Wham ugehes r

Be ee ° = : : re ee ee ee ee ee ee ea Rares aa es ae Ce - a sineuntet eel Se I ne . eet Nidheelane ibetDegeatl . site ieeee 2 ERR ee eo SL ig IS. occ EERO rr oat ae oe SESS IE RE SESE SR ee ie oe paberess aoe 2 REESE EO Sha CREE RENN TS ERS RRR 2 ER RR . . wi aa » Besse: 2 STi - EES CREE EEE ER URE ee Selo. nh ae 2 ERB oo. RRR OR Sea a oR eee ae Dy ae eeSS en “Oe, SE oe aa RnR Seot SES po ae 4 7ern “aie ania eeERB ae Le ae SERRE CRS SOR AO OE Soh: : Wy, Fee ae SF Bo. ERS ORep. ERRORS oS3RR Re ae mec a 4 on Bc ell: TEM, ce 20SOEs eeSana SE RRS ER” Ro Sone 2» oR. CREE RR CABS Seo Re ESS as Re Se Es Mod oth eo Se SEES USS Se” aag ~REE cge 2ESR -RE a eet Beco EES a eee Re oS Choe - | RE Sage eee Je . fF:Se Y: ate SES RE bpc. Oe eR ETS Ses Bop at RS eee Sa geERE GOP cseee Sg RRR ERR RRC: RR RRS *Phoo0 ERS See eae :Bees LUE 9, We BRR aM SE ae eeBee ee RE 3SSE aSeee ee ae ee eee PRET VE. ee a EERE 5:ES. Bee STE SS aSSSPE SRR Rc ene Pe aR ed MU 7. .RT ~ CSEEES . hotaNESS SG eeRS TSeases Beaeeee Bane a COR SSESE Ree SERRE eg a Beco OSES gs SeenON eeSee eSeee URE oe ae ACREE CE ar oe Pe genesis oh He SeSRB ogSRB BooSec age AY RRR eSon eS ae a sc ean

Lt Ee ae ae EE ee EE Ae ge CSE ee ees Be RR eo cS

ORR oo Dots, SRE OSES Bo eae SRR gee ee2aS USES a.ee Se aeME ¥Bi Bee Seg3BSREROSC JEEEN Bega 2S SIRE as cece RR Sree 2CSR RRRae a esSe Ree 7. [UE SERS 2) SEE SDS Sy) SSS EOS ee(SBR ere Sg eR[EEE LE. Se OESCE IRS EeRII ech eae ee, ORE i

: SAS WEP ee, en SE Eg ae See: Sa 2 PS enogee ves,Pee: EeCREE ae 2>oe re “BB a er22oeSReeaSee a ee,A See eR,eee See

“CSUR SER ee. BRL : Sara ascas sera "ERRRS eS eh, HRSSSREL coe: Sg a-SSS Sr BR Sa co eR SR REDRR RRSc aRRRS RR ot CO IS. SL CSaee “oe . ts * PRON apna Ree a ae tac caeeRe since att age a SES ee os: SOEs. eee Re eterna as aSeine GRRE

See ERE | Pers Ce °Oh ee RS SR ye aeEe Boe, ReSR Sere egae aeeR ee aCR peut a TR Nnced we BR. DRESS RESSe GRR EE SE . eege SEES! 1) SIRS SRR SR SoC EES SE Ane RRR See SeSe SE Oe Qa: res Seers cs BEESES SORTS SS RRmem SS lu eR AY we SEE SRERE eee~ e aCa RO ieee ga gee BS OI eeeEe tee eee ees ree geSE, aeSAREE ohGee ERE ES RS SayRES A SSAR ES. ine SayOg Se eae RON BR eee eo ae aR | a RRsec: oie| SSE Bei EEee i eioe oseae SeCSREES a Soe Eee Saed VaRGES. Sacer RR aN aR CEST See oo Fs ee eth Sak be Ta SEE aes eas SERRE Ty UES GEESE ns SRE ce 2 Re SE ERD oe “TRB. Soccer cee Sit aR RRR. GRR RR RR SER eS. RE

Sa gs DT SNSRR SSS?ett, eo VERE SsSe et +RS OERSSRRSEREY RE YL nc > Bea CER RE Saves RRC eae SS.SRE as. ROR RRR Pea senAy a1 ee LENO GE GS URES fyse ae eee ce SeaRO, ee ee eer By. SER eSARSERS | EERRE MSETEESE ARJI.ee 9 SES SR Ge eae esMCs a Rees cree See:

,.

Poe AGES Es ae +ae | CSREES SEER EERE See EE Se eee RE :BES Sapa sasSat ae ace ees geese fe See Saree x 7g SEeSSeSs ESRI Se SEER Pa~ BSS SEES: ead SerSE hEES Tes” Ree SOUS SL“s td ee. Bs SMR epg OR RRReo TREN SORIA EN SRR bees eeSSeg hl Sue RS OO EEE: oe RES SS. Mth ET Bi achen seam See Sey SRR iabone Sears ee ee OE SE. RS Oa :GS aeSREY SSE SEES ae BoE Ze “ anaes. RNS. “aaa Ree aaa eeaR Seca ay3cca ee SRE REE RRSeci aeSER NN OS NS NCO aHikes: = Sawep URES

. iYI lughe 7 ms M-; Jane SS.7Eea4 MLOTTIS

nS Reo ht 2 ERS ee oS ee ee es Pony uy Fs ee REC Seere ODoe ne RRR ESE 2 ee eeee er eeORS : ee _ ia Ee a , ee Se eee Se aeeee a ae ee oe ee a. —rr—— CLC crc ccc ULL :A 4 Seed cS oe a ee eee ae "RS Se ee BP : ee lhc iC ro rrr lL poe ee OO ee2)Se ee. aaee ee eee esSe3Lo ‘Xs :243. ae ‘ee sg &Be ee ;Be ces ee 3 ce Siege > Be eS = a £2 a ue + | Ge es = Be 2. Se Sa : . FS Sa 4 Ra Re SBR = a ae ee _o=ee ¥ 423 mo & ERE ee SS Pe eege a Se. eee 3 §&& x eoee,ES . i..ciassist perm ck}.

Cael] ie oe a < _so oe x . ae Es se 3 . ae we GR ge ee 2s geese SE ; ie 25 a

akio‘eS-_ ae ok ao &. 2a“ a Te zoe E>ge. a Soy ee a aa ee oe ee22s Ae ge3. oe eee aae Sor a eexs eraeesESee

oea ee 2oe =.oe & SRE eoee ee ee: SEE SS Se Se aRReeeee BBS ii SRE gape ee een ee | ey iSe Sc Set ee Be SCRA Rae Bec: SS EE, O00 SELES REoo aFae SMGae No EE te SEX: GA esoy EERE OUTS UCHESRE ei Roa ee, eee ia SR eee Seek aan we be SOT ccna 4:. ge,Bes 4“ieeeae ;ooeee.SO eS See = ae eee ete Sg a “Ne SEE 8teESS,CES Sn DE : a > |... ee ee ee = Re RR RRR ae Be Geeaiee ng eee Ss Se Pi oe Be. eee os as — eee Be = 3 ee oS Na eee SRE Be Se er SOLS Ss ee -:4 ae sierra iscic nee AEE Ste SRE RR oe SS ee BS ce nege RRR eae OT BED one SS. Seapine CARRE SEaesieees SEURLAS peebonrsescent “gece oe esCUES er cS Ree Earner Way oes Ss aSetate SRG Bee Be es ss one pee: oeae MeWe oePRES APOE oe tog es: ee - oecance eS eee oie ESSE “ise Ge oe ee Bs Say eseeihne ee C. : ata. fhBa EES ae oe aesghee SSSR SSE a eo RRS ES RRC aeee oRER a Rap ceeee See ee ae UE Mas ee ee ee ee ee peRas ee i .3ey .i”ae 2ce‘aE oe PS ee. ag ee aS SERRE ORE

Le ) .es

i Reor ee a ro See ee Ne aRAR ee Gee x,- 54 Be so ee aayRe QE Est ous pe eeaie Be So oe seSes EES ORR Eee eSeRe aeRS,

UR ee

.* retinthe Nineties Pitt Street

peg ee Oe ROUEN oteee Pn Se ee ee ee ee eee °Re a er eSee Sa eee J, 2eeee ee ee ae soREE -EE @.,..-OIE = i eeer fe 8 ft R ey 2 SeNEES eee: Beis eseORC che cen hl enact SSE eR rhein ; . 7 ae: 2 AA : ceSeeny aN so. -heomeateriee TON ORE RD SEER PRR OR SeSR A ea i

aor ReCR ROR Iinsu SER SCRE GR URES ea RE ee trSaas ee ne noc wiccc ssotiianana athe separation menccelangedce sede i aise SSS SS Se Soe: eae SEE ReeRss ee eSa Soe ee ace BS toe Sec Eerne Roane Eee SESE SN SENN Seer eee sence cee Se eeeSrc Se SE aesee See ae SN Soca nce aZS OAUES SURES AS SSSeae ROMS eccenen ea eens ee eesire So ae SAS SEES ore IRSS aSe Sa ROR SeSee he aSoe reeee eeeoe mee ee ER SSnena See aiereo eeaneSeite ees eae SRR REN AR SeeLAS ninc ates pe naa enSSS nea ee ee Fs “OPER Poteet eng a si RRR ED, SOE oS eee PabaeO Neier seene ea mite See SUELO oe ee gS Se Le ee Se a ea ee EB ee ee ea eee Geri emee MRR CS eS TARAS: BEES, SSREAESES os Sees ee ee SEES Sea : eeinne Gee ee STE Ses aR SS SRBC oS aSNasSRR Joe GE nS See ce RAS ae oe ee a Rr cM en,RR RR Seen ema neem RS eR SSN as aR Sec See acc eeRRS 8 JERS SSS SeninRMR Tighe0 SEec a RAMETERS = CREO. ee Susi sac gepenna sien SEIS RR oe ee SE eS SECO aeEsai. RNS sSaeerece NeeSES ERSe R SiS EERE ROS RS ES SRE SUEUR SE SSC ai a a POU aaa See Ce cas. aeER occ oR eg SERRE >Se ‘eee SEES SNitingek cae SS agaecneeean SS Se Sin aE ReeSRS ee meee ee EERE SEES Pe eR SE Reena See eee geese aae ca oie suena enaTR. San aRE a er ee ence”

eo = se eee A er ee ce a ce ee ees ee eeee eee ~~ ee SE eee ee Be ee Ree oo See eR Ee SS eee SEs eshr er ee es ee ae pe See ee OSES Ene we" 3d ee uote elie Se Cg Meg ee ee aSISeeee aeeee eer Pe ES Sess aiapeatentnon eae FORESEES SRR SANS ae SaEee [ORES CARER Sea ns aaa SRO. CE, eee ESSE ES = =e ER ae Sea SEES 2SEES) SEES. 2Tey EEE ESETGREG ce noain eietonetinte Se Ce Se eeem ee. a 7 or = ec on aaa TE Ege UE SEY eee SS eas SR os a Oe @ oe , : : oe SSSR a ee a pen ee ee ee Sn rr oF re pod p BE gS UR eee Bee Og ee ee ee es ee 2EES SES i fob GEwenaeSEEESUIEST a ee eeSheae ae es ee ee RS 3agE 7” .2 ’OE. CSRS SSE i REESE, ES GEESE oes, EEO See eS a ee ane & EERE. Bs : SOS. 8. Tas T GREENS CGR See SSeS. . ee RE eetter REESS coo ERR eos Since Saher . See

: re ee ee ee eee ee Sain Eee eu oe ee ee EE cokow

“ : Be 23 8 8 2s od & o eh we ee ELSES SS SE re er ee ee ee TESS PN og Hee Ta

: :7 EES Ek im : a‘s cache. :: ta, ot as Es RE 2age EQNSSo et . . ~ 7} if ley main . .nay yOK act ifa- )rarbour 1 c IC Xe) :WS gyry across dour to Balme

Re : 4 .

Svd evo inst evoror loo in ACPFOSS Lda

.

2

: Be a a

Rene AR ONOSONS. . 8a SS Lo fy . Roe SNe oh % : 7 Sees ee Be . ) ER .fees SEAS pS oe :mr oeaBs wits sk gee. “ORES. : CSE EECeee SEO UE Ea ORS F— CER ie 3 -a 2 ESSE Sea “Dans : SOLE SHER . ee eee : a ;' Oe ee es. ee ee SA PRS RIMES bn ke EE CEs Bisoanennene eo ee eos EES Re Soa See ee ee : ee ee : Je eee z - RS Ss erence SER ASRS! Tha : . Gap) DEDSR RSs ES)

ERE PSE eg eS as een Se er ee Hata SORE Oy 2 TSS caine ehhh SS EIRENE) : [ESRee Se SSIS SSIES SeaGo Resrromnn aneUs Rigen aee oN Seeae ea SAU ee ee SA as SE eee ae e onthe cer ae ee Se 3 SRE SSE SEE eeeeenaonaaane ean a Oe SERS SORRUE a NN CEeect RANSea Ra HE eesues an , = a : = eee ee BC BS REE ER OE Rie xs Ba ee Sak ESS Serer Secret ee ac aR oe ee SSS eee Bee oS Joo ce SS Sao eee eae ean oem eeammer ee RSS SS aS a ae Re 7 oR Pee eae a ee Laermer Beene Se RR ee SLES Se Soe eee ees Pe ee ae ee OR a ee ge: ee as SEES SESS SS ea ene . Ramee Neo OEE OMRON COR NR Brena See Secu. + Soe, ARR UES 7 :

EERE titan eactan ena abeae enema ear SERESS UTE ae Se an SSeS remanent Seana nee Sree hie einen! RRR NO en : cae = ERR coe sean potent inane ncn ne cae Settee RSet, [RRR SS SNS Sea UAE ORR Sos tN ates SORES rtaeeecnmenass Si EEE Se een ogee

Fe ae Jer: aren gncESEe SSE eee ae SR Sie erPG Samameeerenommas Ce ee ee og BE, pe. gee eeBenge ene unone eeCESSES anes DES eee shnoan Se ee Ee RS RN Skee ee eeNN =Rnee SESE Ron cee CESS Se NGSO AG sS RN R RRES RRS Sores RIene NER OeSESE ERE esee aeBe ecRR RRs a.ee eos eei a SEs a ae Ra SR SN sieeSR Ra cae SeesGRE nS OS “FESS ee SE eA Se SS Sa BSS CEE

PSs AR rr ee ee Co eee er SEE ee pS Ee2SSE Heng eS ee aSSeed SSneee a Sines unenntia ORD IMEERoaSeeteeanteee e BRS cea ah ae SEE oa ee See5i Belo S58 SE OeES aeSS SSeS eeSa eae aes ee errr Et OSES

SE SoUnS aeSEE piesaSe htuan Seen SEIT SRS DostSS canna ceoN ae aACR RR RN aRnag A ER SRR aR RES Reha em 3° aire pee SS SLge SS ERR SRO RRRost ny roranaciese sents inn RR REN RR esa iEcce nen oreeae Serene nenc Se RES :eeSean SeSees Sec ieee ag TSS aeBi eos SS Sees: ep maSS RN eS 2 ag ee ee 1 HEE, SORE eee eee es Ds SESE use ge eet a r—“SRA cae eaeee Cane

Sataaparreaianna tena aE ania RNaEEE Se BERETS Re Skoeet 2a.ESR Reaepees Sor ooronan eR AR Picci cine hap ee nee eras eehash RehyAUR RN SO . ggeee + JO Rnee eee TEE ex EOS Sean a 2* Se reno oO Pee. Satna SRR arc ethernet ieBEE, 2.ke see aioe tian cree ete Re, Be ee .ene ee ee Soa Re co ae eee RR ES oe SOS apne Dr apRRS a||Nan eae ae.CR aSRI Se Sa 7. pages eeie.GSS aae, = Beeee eas ovat nomena eees ORR RROD SRR SERN SER RO Re Re nh aa alSok pos enSEES o“REOES -'PSG UD _ SR SUE ee. se SRE eee ompe oon lr oo 3 oS aE oa PASE TES UL + 3 a = Bo Sees Ee BS Sara gel RR ER = . ME Sg eS 7 SUN aa Se Besa See Sa ae eae oo Bes g i AR " SEE RE Be: 2 Ses oe Seer cS 2S pag Re Roe SSSR NSE aint a ema SU oe are Be eS SE: ESE : . ., TEEREEEEEEESC ee ee : ASR scone a Fs AG a ee Sa eee ee a a COCR es ee ™ £ 2. SERS ES ES ES SE. BS ea ake ee EE Bets ea ca Gane nN er Re RR a : SE ne ob O 25S, RE NR 5 Bt fae BE SRR Cs ECON Nee SeteeSa 4i er Eee RR RR ee eet a ee or fe ee ee ee eee ee Tee

pare Sch s-:- Bn ots 7 eS Ree es ee ee ee 2 YRS RY Pa eRe ne OE LR a catia cece eS RR a,

ttt Be aS MER SeSORE resee eeSh Eee eReMay LgeSSE E'S2TO wth acti st wo AY. ESS ae BSS eanenc Reo Samer ot BE eR, | . a, 2. =RoSee PER a+Le SRR a nee UR SEES PE As ae SO menan gS: SURE UGTER TESA RRS OSE oT. SRR ena ay ASB iy?ASEE oSeet BIeee SSDS ieBARNS aaeSe“ERE ce anavn ee peace ngSS Ceaaa ea ae

Lg BBE SESSA 1)eaRS es eee paBeOe ahs 9° Se . 0eeUSES SSaae aR SoM GREE Tg uy ee aes Ree ee okeee Ba Wo be ER. 90 AEEES Eee PE Se sca SR SE Bee pares 5 peok insSisk . Sigareroe. Sasen cena ane emncmee Sony teeti2 .Oh ERED ae GEES SSS, Gain FE ge URES SUR Re Stconned ner neni eae SUSE ROee RRA ae: igen Oo vc * “pe cn * acne : 8 Pee Seer eae ca a rn er , ASReoeE SS. SER oa WD SURREAL ee ea acca Tec EEa AEE See pe SoBe ateciaeroe eres: SRwho RSE oUSs SOE ei OSS Ee,ALO | eeeSSE RS SE ae ae _Be FS Woo.) gee ee ore Se eR BB ES EES ce ee a ee aaeaee oe2aok : BA : xaog WUE. ea Shee ARe ieSO) OE ee SAREE CESS LENT ECT CREO. ..¥ wie Tuies we oFSE vlRMR cl RRS cee: cee SVLOEE Sa Se CS, TR eee Rc : a "a Gg Ba oes ae See ee ern pee oo wees Tae Soo ios See eSuy ete SRR oat ota eo anna ae oat ee cr ER ERR Oe oS Se eo EER oa cen one ai"a oa 0 SEY, TES x «ee. Se aaa se ee eye eer ee ~ WEES a SP EOE Th SESE SRS oe RUS ER eo” Sa ee Bik rcs Sane aL ATT CE MRMRET « PREERTRECOROL: CORRRE eccs itech

; aR a OS a SON Ce 1eee apes. Se SG SE OR ReaaNS ceeidLL aS bon EEee“aie oo) Ee ce ole oh ARR I ORES! Sara Sea SS . Look 2rah BA RE o> ee Sok wey ee 3. 2 NA Reece a + (iid RSE OE RR re BSS.. ene Sana Ss ee ee _ eas B LT SAR eee SER oe Ge TR Sate Ge SAS CR a aie 2) See Sa ees, St BS I ae nO a RO RRR ES SPE RS ES Se SE

. TRB AS eeoe care=sane CR cy Hecate Seg oe ta 5 ee eo RR one Sea aa Srughaiees gt aES anh ce, ke : (ibeets Se 0Bae eercaheeanertena es eee eSNR2 CC eeCE ere ee er SSR SERS nd ESae oa aaa

CoRR EETSR * BR OSCS RRoo SSeg SESS. : SRR SE Ss eo ER ee DARE S| BARRE eS |a eee, ee eee "RRR SCE CORRE RP SSSSSA Sy aebah: a EsRE oSEsRea

Q MS Sas cae a, | Be comes came at ae aaa SON”. earn Groen AERSore McaSey ae aR eRe ae OEcee ORR a.ane ee Re ee aCUR RRS.VE 2 RRS SCR

SERN mE eS Ree Per Nc NUR RRC Rae eae RRS Sa ES ESS SE SR eR OES a eeceeee A Boe! ee ee ee eecEME ee ee eee ee em Eeeny Sete aiga ra eeBags "ECA epee ftee oo, OS i Aen octane Tae Re We RR Re. eSNee GE EL SS aSS eoee SeEee gee eae ieee ea Beat in AIRS aSER Se ee ne es eee cpl 0ae feapie, . Sc ee Seeren, eeee UT os2 ee are aah gies aeaSiig cr aR nepea Se aiae RES Se NaeRaa Sager RRR ciana! See ona SeSS EeSS OR ScCees Soka Bec aaa enc OE Rhowta 2 SNES ee sn ae RR eC CR SMR eS Sir toiaaeane eae Re So ON ea et, Lal tere | aa aeeaeeTS Boe pean teeRE eSeekk eceSee oeees teea RE "Sep aaGCC ac|”ea OeDeca RCCePETC Ca EEE. OS

i ee |S a ESS Se SS Sober eine rs SE SoS Sea hr cn ee sO EO CORRES "CO SER BISA “RES tg Mears SO eee ee SOEUR SAAS SS eee aie cat eha tee ot ean eet g SE ce Peper cen oxy,

Pee cues'- 2Sp hpeR HE esSRS SoSOS ee eae a I chit aaa ge Renate caroecarmen SSS eeRR a Se a Ste ia.. ea SG greeSa eno ES ease BEGG a ta aanSe thi ta teat treeSe EReea SS ag ee ereSaaS MAES

Sy ae eMac wl yhoo Ree OASIS SRR RSS CAS RSCG CAAT ae an

ke aR SR on Ue aaa eset att age gear a eee aa “reece Eee RT STE AA SOE RO ns Co tee ses SS ca mea Steen NER SSE Se

a : Bek oR rr Bite ra ee ¥ gic a TUR a SC ae Bi en estore ee TVs Sn Riper teins eo en MIR, UE ai ep ee ae eS Ra Wipe ee eS 2 Ea ee eee Se ne osoe eo Soo Ss ae 2A Siereee eS.AR Soe UEScEC OS RceROS SEeSeeRES _ Sanne ee ee

Roane A aieeeBRIE SO ES Se ES OY poags 2 T. [> 2De Re SSS catia Sa Ee Sa, SE SegSe PER a SR Ub ACRM eRooo Ee Or acc a =aEO ay Bog eeeDUP eeSe eS re SR ec ceeSS ene a ene rkRR aaa Beg gee Pug EUS QS SAB Po eee eacera a SS aa ce OESee ESSE SSR Sine aed cyt PRE Sa ar. eee

Agee ae yes a Spelt AU a ee ee a ee ee RO ASR SP Se eR SE? BOA Se Ree Oe ERY i UPS COE gee cages Ae PO ee SUNS OE aee 2 ea eee SSUES Leta ee eee Pewkne og a eres Ytg eeigate Re neg oegecareer aehee Pa aetna a ee aeABas eas EMBL aA a eT erea NEek ee sae poet haet2S Beeoe aeee ae eSah RSSReis Aga GEE A Reee RS he SipeeS ey Seay Ga Ee aNSS aad See iRateee eee ee ra ee re ee SURG MASE EU ye pee ees eeaeaos SC a iran aecreepa nat eat eeeeeeeaise NE po ee ee eeSy PASORE ee ee ee 8 MR ae

age 2S ete ee ges ae oe TAMIA Shree SACs acc San SE Se ss RE ea To OSS TA SBT Pt pe Dae aptepee ens eeGaee TOR gdSeaBaa aiea Bios ee See ee eae SEN SeanSap eat ag eee Bie tates ea agee Bh ae SSeS ESag Re ee ea tS SeSa” a ee Ree muacan cate caet TR Seg ah RSA ee ee ace tereSRR SeAeeLTPia Ae ReXA Seaesaa Srprcere Baa SER a ce oeAteakany, SURE ROad Be oan Sacer pe eis WORRY oP LEE Acer ES See OE oToa SCaCET OL NCCES eat ni ons eae aiereas Soames tateES Saree eres etc Dh eR eR oe SSE PRR Bett .t tf 4

Delegates the nterstat Interstate ont :L:ference JC gAltes stateto®| Labor Conterence, 1900

"EE acer ccceSorc Ca nc ae 7oo ae SSCeeSESS SegeRccc

SEBS ESR Se ES scene aa a se eanaR Seen ea me teneS SRSRG stateside Neate aeR ANNe Rta RNR tae aR I.. RRC RR ae ON ern eae eee Hoang SEE ERE SRE INS Oh RU RC eeante RR 2a ees se Se RR eS: anes 2eae asshasta eeEe Ra eee petersenii enna sgt eeEUS eS TEESE SSE SoS CR RRos REaAR RN ATR SihRR oc samme enema cher ROS arae DeSean nese eo ee nen ar a SSR Ba Rar CONERC SO Pasaa Seen Rone Rn Ser sean aSee SE RAN CARS RR ES SES So aOR REESE cee ce ce oS a ea ee Ss aE SnReSURR SS SY SESS SSSSSOE RDO eR hn cian tae aie Sapen nianSSR eee a on mae RRen Tana Rae aR REIT aSiR oe ae Mm oe ee ee Be ae a SRE SS —rr—“—isOsOsO—sO—CO—O—s—s—s—s—s—s—s—s—sONONSCSOsisisiéC‘ C‘CCOC# Pent gy SE RR oS RS RRR raha ean satan crac eisai ct A RR ORO SEO OAR RRO RESO ROE SRE CaeeEN RRS OO Re AES eto ce aa encase ptr cae ait eae eR eta cae RRL RN NBO RAs aay ph sc tenteetase .

Cece RE 8aoeSuc aH ea ee ae eeSee eeSas SSE Sas Raeee SSce cAES eo Rtec eee Me ea uheeea Ree me SG aes es RRS oeaE PORES ee gsSe Siatn Ore Snseein ce pe ee See Se SSes BO. SSS Gee ea Se Rc gd ERR hooe SRsss SS eee coecen aan soem ene men are ete aueree Oa ee eee SEE Sg Se eC a ee Re RR Bese EE ee eee fo 2 Hae pean eeBS 2 Re a ra aecm ceDETERS SE eR SR ae RI a ene ene ceMRB ee ES eee aes See Ses aaa SOOee RReee aaaBE am SRC. RRSce SER NI RS OOO RS SR SS eee ae ee = SR ees Sc ee icc Se 2 Bee ese |RoSERRE as Pe ee Ee eae eeon=” ee ee Seg Se es SES TES SEAS aeee RRS chaeer LE ERO Or SRR ra ene RRR aneRES e eee (RR cea Part Sem eg cc 8 ooo. ee aR a aia eas RR RR RRR RR 7 RESO RR ES Seer % ESE SSS SRS RR Rr ec Se SSE SE SSee a ee SE eGee poe Be fee ree ccc i RaIeeSoe eS ae a,eee Se ee Bi Se ee Be a SARS aaa Hae CME. sienacseeniesi cloa iBee rece SENS eeSe SR SS Rs Re ena css rae . tee TEES ty SESS Si" eescsateaas Sas Ben EES os SE ea oot Bee no Sg eee SEU ee, Te eee ee en q= aBoe Rose gee Bee aSAE Te EE Pe cer Seen eS re en Be:RE eae: rcee EE aaa: .aca EES oe siseeetc ay SR ee Bienes. nisi nee Sa ees .ee sso ico. eee Bees po SRE ate Sic pam Seed ge Rae [ES + RS emcee Ee . RE SE ea ea ae Bes ee: : SRS Boo RR Rea EES Ba Baten Serene suet occa 7 SEE ee Beek. So ERS Se . Be oe ER . ores coke Ry SEE . . 2, Se ce RAC eee Oa Br ae aoe Se Se 5. :ara *,es SE on Bear SR 2 Se RR Sa eS :F: Si aM ae Be SES. Tee a7 Sareea Se MEE Se TE pea aeSea See OS | SS ae ;E33y;Lo ae ees “esa See > en ee F :ERAS PRE ae oe RM SSeS ENS teee’ 3Bes COR eee pesckice nent a "SORE ; . ioe . Ripe eee eee : 7 an Baca ec ee Soper: . Se a ee no oe ERY GSS ae: aa ee ee ee SESS * eo we Jog in SERB ee ee en Basen Recetas SCN NS Sc ORO RR RP OR i a pe. Seem a SLABS SELES CS = Bored oe SSE ees — aCone eee ee: oe ee a7Broa ~eerSe ee LG ac S|SBSe a. . :RE the ia Se coe es Pee oy ene en aaagua cc 1B S :: *::Fee pRCS PES Ree :: :GRE. SR SRE BEES :iea:aE ee eae ena oea Bs E ae ES See REP . ot Bets eat ee es ; ; Sapp ERS os Se * so . Sie ee SUE renee TE ee Ps a ENE SRRRME wnt : a RR RRR ae . fFe : . ROEDER ues < SERS pees | eae aoc aed ee : : . = 2 SER CEEREEESE, PSE RE oo fe Recesericeas. Gomme. ae rae =n : a bo RSS cts ne arn ene ee i ee ares ee oa ; . eae SESS ut. EERE : Sees Sea Pee eaee ee Sage 4i cs ee fs Bes cere tne SS ah s@ os fs Lo :SSeS .: :| wee HE ogee : Ses -Sa 8 ce Be STE, : : aes me :SP, go, A BRT SESE a SER OER OSSee rEorSe es : : gee THEE. LoS.BSUS “Raceeece eeogaa PeTa ioe ite Rg RS FR ee Re oN eee ee pee Roa PBR OR a cae RRRoo RRee RO Sh NR ey stan a eR Se enonePr aaaNice nN NGS ROSince RRR Nk nu RRReee DN ER RRROm SR ESRN ne CRRA RR ONES Bee erRR eee SeSe ie ees Serene naEMR eee Rea Rn CSRS Se ES

EEE SSeS eR SS a ES RE ROR Nr RR SRR OSC RRA RRR NO OS RS EERSTE SAS ULI SR NON O SSE RRS R RE

SESS CSN SSCR ooo agRN SeRc oes ee SSE RRR SSR SSS OREO EE RSee EES SSR oo SIR IR RO ae rnRR CR eR RsSecs Se Sanne eye sant Ao aSS RRERO PRES RS RearRS naam ne ren on nearer oemEES ue eee entre [IER Ra as Cente ae SR tae och sah aaa ire nd Sn RR OS SEN RRR RRR ee aetna oo SR RNR > HRA ce Se Be ee cet ne ea SSS RSE Ae eS SRR ESS RAR NC SRE SRR RY | SRNR RC SSG SO VO a IEEE SECEECSNRRS ceSa *Seigiaeg cb -Sis. Gcie SESS Se SeoR Socea,Cees 2 eeeei. aia Sa CASE Be. “SEE ahcei ec Rocnaitaainn

; > G. McGregor, atson PINS M ,C O.Tatsc B. Higgins, W. . Hughes

CHAPTER VII

On the Waterfront OLITICS, strenuous as they were, were not Hughes’s only activity as

Pp nineteenth century neared its close. With the Labor Party soundly

organized, with Lyne in office and pledged to carry out the immediate reforms demanded by Labor, and with the federal question settled, he was ready to seek new fields to conquer. He began to read for the Bar, coached by T. R. Bavin, his collaborator in the Early Closing League. But especially he threw himself into the work of industrial organization. Up till this time, Hughes’s association with unionism had been occasional and, so to speak, external. We have seen how in 1893, as a political organizer employed by the Young Trades Council, he combined the organization of shearing sheds with that of Labor Electoral Leagues. We have seen, too, how he devoted himself to the work of the Early Closing League, of which he was one of the most active organizers, the champion in a sceptical Labor Party, and the principal parliamentary spokesman, but this was outside the trade-union movement. No doubt he had other relations with that move-

ment, and his work as member for the Lang Division brought him into close contact with the waterside workers and their problems. Nevertheless, in spite of oft-repeated statements to the contrary, it is clear that until nearly the close of the century he was first and foremost a politician, and that his contacts with the industrial movement were incidental to his political career. He belonged essentially to the post-1890 generation of Labor men, believing firmly that the way to industrial betterment lay through legislative action, and that this could be achieved by organizing the working class to use its

votes effectively. As he was to write later: “In a community enjoying universal franchise the laws are just what the people desire them to be, and therefore... all reform is to be achieved along constitutional lines by educating the people.” 1 Such reported statements as “I was an active unionist long before becoming a politician” (Bulletin, 16th February 1901) should be treated with some reserve in the absence of any corroborative detail and in the face of the negative evidence of, for example, the comments of the Australian Workman on his first election (21st July 1894). The only specific references to early union activity, such as Crusts and Crusades, 101 ff., or J. J. Cusack, Bank Reform the Key to Full Employment (Sydney, 1953), 27-8, all relate to the politico-industrial tour of 1893. The picture of early trade-union activity built up by later writers such as Sprigg, 22-3, and Browne, 41-2, is expressly denied in an article in Mid Pacific Magazine, August 1918, probably written by Keith Murdoch, which states, “He was not at this time [1i.e. 1894], as is popularly supposed, a prominent trades unionist’, and this 1s borne out by all the contemporary evidence. “D.T., 22nd August 1908.

99 H

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

The early closing agitation had shown what could be achieved by political means, even without union backing (for there was no Shop Assistants’ Union until rgor),® and perhaps something of his own powers as an

organizer. He had watched the political career of Spence, and seen the power of the Australian Workers’ Union, and its weekly paper the Worker, in the labour movement. We may fairly suppose that he saw, as Holman never seems to have seen, the basic weakness of a labour political leader who cannot count on union support, and who does not know the industrial as well as the political movement from the inside. Now, with his immediate

objectives in the State arena achieved and his thoughts already turning towards the Federal sphere, he set to work with characteristic energy and thoroughness to remedy this deficiency.

His association about this time with the formation of the Hotel, Club and Restaurant Employees’ Union, in which he is said by one writer to have been “a main instrument”,* seems to have been merely casual—a by-product of the early closing movement which had inspired it. At any rate, he never seems to have taken any active part in the union’s conduct. The materials for a more lasting and substantial basis in the industrial movement, however, lay ready to his hand. While living in Balmain, and still more as representative for the Lang Division, he had come to know the wharves and the men who worked on them. Conditions on the waterfront at this time were very bad. The Wharf Labourers’ Union, which had been strong in the eighties, had been smashed as a result of the Maritime Strike of 1890, in which it had played an active part. Though the union continued

to exist, at least in name, its power was broken and it was numerically insignificant.° The stevedoring firms and shipowners, on the other hand, were strong, closely organized and united. Members of the union were black-

listed and its organizers hunted off the wharves. In some cases “company unions” were formed, to which the men had to contribute 14d. out of every shilling earned in order to get employment.® Unskilled labour in the nineties

was superabundant, and the men dared not resist. Wages were very low, work was irregular, and employment depended wholly on the foreman or superintendent. Men might work for twenty-four hours at a stretch, and then be unemployed for weeks. Long afterwards, an old wharf labourer recalled having once been put off while actually swimming in the harbour 3J. P. Osborne, Nine Crowded Years (Sydney, 1921), 3. 41L. Frost, Official Souvenir: 8-hour demonstration 1900 (Sydney, 1900), 49; cf. Australian Labor Federation, Sydney District Council, ‘Report for half year ending 31st December 1899” (in its Minutes, 1894-1901, 471). 5It was represented on the Sydney District Council of the Australian Labor Federation at least till 1894 (Minutes, 16th August 1894). On 8th November the Council’s Minutes record receipt of a letter “From the Sydney Wharf Laborers’ Union intimating that vigorous efforts were being made to induce non-unionists to join”. These seem to have been unsuccessful. 6 Information from W. M. Hughes; cf. Browne, 41. 100

ON THE WATERFRONT

pushing in wool bales from a capsized lighter.’ Another gave evidence before the Arbitration Court in 1910 of having worked a straight forty-eight hours in a ship’s freezing chamber loading frozen meat.* Any complaints meant black-listing and loss of employment. From time to time, there were attempts to revive the union, but they met little success, and at the end of 1899 the Council of the Australian Labor

Federation could speak of it as having been “for the past few years... utterly disorganized”.? The last attempt had been in 1896, and with this Hughes, in common with other Labor politicians, had had some association. On 15th July a special meeting of the union had convened a mass meeting for the election of officers, seven members contributing among them 5s. 6d. towards the expenses. On 27th July, a meeting was addressed “at considerable length” by Hughes, Watson, Ferguson, and Bavister, M.P.s, and by two outside union leaders “on Unions re-organization”, and resolved “That at this Meeting the members present pledge themselves to become members

of this Union to-night and give in their names to the secretary”. A week later, officers were elected and instructed to “meet next Tuesday night and discuss as to how business will be carried on in the future and submit their report to the next meeting”. Hughes and George Black “spoke at some length wishing the Union every success”, and Hughes donated a cheque for £1 1s. “for the working expenses of the Union”. In spite of this encouragement, the reorganized union never really got going. It was weak in numbers (by December its membeiship was 356, which would not be more than one seventh of the men employed on the wharves); it was desperately weak in finance (weekly cash receipts seldom exceeded £1 and fell as low as

six shillings, and the treasurer did not bother to open a special account, but kept the union funds in his private account—a fact that was to cause some trouble later). Above all, it was weak in leadership. Almost its only activity in its sixteen months of life, if we may judge from its minutes, was to listen to exhortations from outside speakers, mostly Labor M.P.s, on “the

necessity of combining”, “the necessity of organising this union”, “on Combination and Unionism”. Hughes, in addition to the two occasions already mentioned, addressed them twice: on 4th November 1896 “at great length on the great necessity of combining and spoke on the Presidential Election in America and the powers” and on 15th September 1897 when he “advised men to attend the meetings of the Union and stick to Eight Hours”.

His addresses provided a popular turn, but he was only one of many. George Black and Sam Smith, of the Seamen’s Union, appeared more often, 7 Story told to the writer in 1956 by Mr J. Young, President of the Sydney Branch of the Waterside Workers’ Federation, who had often heard it from an old member. 8 New South Wales Arbitration Court, ‘Transcript of evidence, 30 May-9 June’, in the office of the W.W.F., Sydney Branch. 9 “Report for the half year ending 31st December 1899”, in Minutes, 1894-1901, 471. IOI

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

and once these two addressed a meeting in company with Ben Tillett. The warmest welcome seems to have been accorded to Thomas Bavister, M.P.,

a veteran unionist of the old school who was not even a member of the Labor Party. No doubt all these exhortations were necessary, but they were

not enough to keep the union alive. The last set of minutes, dated 24th November 1897, records the resignation of the president and vice-president, as well as of another member. It was resolved, somewhat ironically, to send the secretary to Newcastle at the invitation of the Newcastle wharf labourers

“to reform their Union”, and the secretary urged members to assist in collecting contributions “as it was actually necessary for to increase the finances of the Union”. The rest is silence, and even the trifling payment

due to the Trades Hall for the rental of a safe was allowed to fall into arrears.’°

Such was the position on the waterside in the second half of 1899. None

the less, though “utterly disorganised”, the wharf labourers had a small nucleus of men, however discouraged, with some experience of unionism, and they were not without friends outside the industry. Prominent among

the latter were Archdeacon Langley, the Church of England rector of St Phillip’s Church in the centre of the waterside district, a strong supporter of unionism on social and humanitarian grounds, who had made his school hall available for the meetings of the 1896-7 union, and was to do so again for the re-formed union, and “Manchester Jack” (John Kilbeg), a big redfaced Liverpool Irishman who kept Mann’s Hotel on the corner of Kent and Grosvenor Streets, just opposite St Phillip’s School and much frequented

by the waterside workers. These men were largely responsible for the attempt once again to organize the union, and it was “Manchester Jack”, a personal friend and powerful political ally in his electorate, who suggested to Hughes that he should take an active part in it.*' Hughes was already familiar with the ground and many of the people, for his electorate coincided

almost exactly with the Darling Harbour wharf area, where the coastal and interstate shipping was concentrated. Now he set himself seriously to master the problems of the industry and its workers. This time there was to be no mistake. The old union had demonstrated clearly enough where the weaknesses lay. It was not enough to listen to addresses by politicians and others on “the benefits of unionism”. Leadership must be given from within the union, it must be continuous, and above all it must demonstrate those benefits in the most practical and material terms, and not merely talk about them. The task was formidable in the extreme. The men were disunited, unorganized and discouraged. The work, the hours and the pay were all 10 S.W.L.U. Minutes, 1896-7 passim, 31st January 1900.

11 Archdeacon Langley was a trustee of the re-formed union, and occupied a place of honour on the platform at its inaugural meeting. The part played by “Manchester Jack” jis derived from the oral tradition of the union, communicated by Mr T. Nelson, secretary of the Sydney Branch, in 1956; cf. his The Hungry Mile (Sydney, 1957), 24. 102

ON THE WATERFRONT

calculated to crush any active spirit of resistance. Yet it was eagerly sought, and the unemployed of the city frequented the wharves and battled for the chance of a few hours’ work in an occupation where, for most workers at least, brawn counted for more than skill or experience. On the other side, the shipowners and stevedoring firms were few in number and closely knit in organization, confident in their strength and made arrogant by their long success in crushing opposition. The task might well have daunted any man:

to Hughes, now at the height of his powers, it came as a challenge and a stimulus.

The last three months of 1899 were devoted to preliminary organization and recruiting. The wharves were canvassed—not without physical risk, though Hughes, as a well-known M.P., could not be thrown off the wharves as he had been thrown out of shearing sheds in the old days—interest was aroused, a nucleus of organizers was found, and members were enlisted. Not until the ground had been thoroughly prepared was the inaugural meeting called for 27th December, and then Hughes was able to announce that “the Society numbered 1300 members, 600 of whom were fully paid up”. The chair was taken by Edward Kelly, a stalwart of the old union who was later more than once to fill the office of president, but who was now content to be elected assistant secretary. Hughes was elected secretary unopposed (he was re-elected without opposition every year until his expulsion in 1916). Two days after the inaugural meeting, the union was publicly launched in the Federation Hall. At this meeting, by a characteristically neat strategy, the new secretary was enabled at once to show off to his union his power over the Government, and to display to the Government the strength of his

union. On the platform were the Premier, W. J. Lyne, the Minister for Works, E. W. O’Sullivan, and nine other members of Parliament besides Hughes himself, as well as Archdeacon Langley and the Reverend Father Aubrey, the Catholic parish priest. As reported by the Herald; Mr W. M. Hughes M.L.A., the secretary to the union, said the organisation had been the outcome of three months’ unremitting work on the part of a number of men. Not even the ghost of the union existed prior to three months ago. Now it contained 1500 members and had £200 to its credit in the City Bank. The union had been formed to enable wharf labourers to maintain their dignity and their rights without harassing their employers.

The union having been started by men who were determined to see it through would seek to secure as a member every wharf labourer who was

worthy of the name of a man. It was conducted entirely on the basis of voluntary effort. No official got a farthing for his services. The subscription

to the union was very small, within the means of almost every man who earned a livelihood on the wharfs. Already the effect of forming the union had been to steady the tendency on the part of various men to take lower wages than fair rates. It was the intention of the union to be a political as 103

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

well as an industrial factor in affairs. The Government would be told by the union of the condition in which the Employers’ Liability Act was at present. The Union wanted the Government to help to rectify such a state of things, and to introduce a Workmen’s Compensation Bill.

Hughes was followed by O’Sullivan who, as an old trade-unionist and ex-president of the Seamen’s Union, spoke of his pleasure in seeing the Wharf Labourers’ Union “fresh rigged and manned”. Then the Premier, in declaring the union formally open, “took some credit on behalf of the

Government in carrying through some humanitarian legislation”. He referred to the Early Closing Act, which was to come into force the follow-

ing Monday, in passing which he had had “the undivided support of the labour party, and the especially intelligent aid of Mr Hughes, M.L.A.” He hoped that the union would be carried on “in a spirit tinged with the doctrines which the archdeacon so ably preached on Sundays”. There were more speeches, during which some of the implications of Hughes’s speech seem to have dawned on Lyne. Later in the proceedings, replying to a vote of thanks, he said “some of the speakers spoke as if they thought he could be driven”. There should be no mistake about that. His object and intention was to lead and not to be driven. In the future his Government hoped to be able to direct the thought of the community into good channels. As to the Conciliation Bill, next session he would fulfil his promise to introduce it. If he got that support which he now felt he would get, the bill would be followed by other progressive measures. He had not investigated fully the details of the Workmen’s Compensation Acts passed elsewhere. If it seemed to him, after investigation, that a bill of the kind was one he could support he would have no hesitation in introducing one which would improve on the Acts of other countries.

This belated assertion of independence was no doubt assessed at its true value by his audience, and did nothing to diminish the extraordinary regard in which they were beginning to hold their little secretary.’

Once the union was established Hughes, who had his parliamentary duties to attend to, to say nothing of his other public activities and his reading for the Bar, and who after his election to the Commonwealth Parliament in 1901 was necessarily absent in Melbourne for a considerable amount

of his time, confined himself to matters of general policy and to the work of negotiation, leaving the day-to-day industrial and secretarial work in the hands of the financial secretary, a position held from rgoz to 1912 by S. T. Harrison, a neighbour of “Manchester Jack”, who later carried on his functions from an office at 2 Grosvenor Street, in the same vicinity. Nevertheless, 12 §.M.H., 30th December 1899. 104

ON THE WATERFRONT

Hughes maintained very close contact with the secretarial work. Whenever

he was in Sydney he attended the weekly meetings, and he was always available to interview employers, as well as making a number of appearances

for the union in the Arbitration Court. His hand may be seen in the very wide powers given to the General Secretary under the rules as printed in 1905: The General Secretary shall act as the representative of the Union in its

relations with the employers and all other bodies, and shall conduct all correspondence and negotiations arising therefrom. He shall conserve the interests of the Union in every possible way, and to that end may exercise any powers not inconsistent with these Rules.

Hughes’s policy for the union was foreshadowed in his speech at the public opening, and repeated on numerous occasions at union meetings. The first task was to build up its membership and ensure its solidarity, without which it could at any time be broken by the employers. “During the whole of this period (1872-1920) the Union was fighting for conditions and was in continual trouble with blacklegs and difficulties in obtaining unity.”**

Minor and spontaneous disputes on the job, to which the industry by its very nature was, like coal-mining, subject, must be settled by negotiation as

quickly as possible, and on no account be allowed to develop into a general trial of strength. While the union was being built up, its weaknesses

must, as far as possible, be kept concealed from the employers. Thus on 31st March 1902 Hughes, referring to the fact that 1500 members were unfinancial, urged his hearers to refrain from “taking any extreme or drastic action” which would advertise to the employers “a state of affairs which they would quickly avail themselves of to smash up the Union”. Just before leaving for Melbourne in May rgo1 to take his seat in the Commonwealth Parliament, Hughes addressed the union and, after pointing out its very satisfactory position, “he urged members to avoid any rash and ill-considered measures and particularly impressed upon them the necessity for avoiding disturbances”.*®

Amelioration of conditions must be sought through legislative action on the one hand, and through negotiated agreements with the employers on the other. In these, the union could use its bargaining power to stabilize con-

ditions at the level of the better employers, and secure some degree of uniformity among the various sections of the industry, each of which had its own usages and customs. Thus one of the first activities of the union was to draw up a set of working rules embodying the existing practice. 13 “History of the Sydney Branch 1872-1920” in the Secretary’s office of the Sydney

Branch of the W.W.F. 14S,.W.L.U. Minutes, 31st March 1902. 15 $.W.L.U. Minutes, rst May 1gor.

105

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

These were submitted to the employers and, after a good deal of argument and discussion, accepted by them. There was some trouble with one of the coastal companies, the Newcastle and Hunter River Steamship Company, which employed “constant hands” on a weekly wage of 42s., for which they had to be on call at any time, and refused to pay the rate of 1s. per hour for an eight-hour day required by the rules. Eventually, however, this was

settled without a serious stoppage, the company agreeing to employ its labour on a casual basis at the standard rate. At Newcastle, where the quite separate Newcastle Wharf Labourers’ Union was being reorganized by the militant socialist H. E. Holland, Hughes tried unsuccessfully to dissuade the men from striking on this same issue, and refused to allow the Sydney Union to become involved, thus incurring the bitter hostility of Holland."® By insisting on the strict observance of all agreements by its own men, the union was in a strong position to claim the support of the employers, and it preferred in general to deal with their associations, which could likewise bring pressure to bear on their members if necessary, rather than with

individual firms. As soon as it was seen that the union, through its new secretary, could, and did, speak with authority to the employers and secure the maintenance of a reasonable standard of working conditions, its mem-

bership grew rapidly. Less than a year after its re-formation, the union claimed 2,600 members, a very substantial majority of the 3,000 odd men regularly employed on the wharves.” With the passing of the Industrial Arbitration Act of 1901, and the setting up in May 1902 of the State Arbitration Court, the union promptly applied for registration under the Court. The first case to come before the Court concerned the Newcastle wharf labourers.’® In December, after a considerable amount of evidence had been presented, an agreement was reached between the Sydney Union and the Stevedores’ Association as to the terms of an award which was then made by the Court and declared to be a common rule applicable to “all stevedores and persons carrying on the business of stevedoring, and to all lightermen in the deep-sea trade at the port of Sydney”.’® This award, which covered rates and conditions for various types of work and embodied the principle of preference to unionists, remained, with modifications and amendments, the basis of employment in the industry in Sydney until the first Federal award in 1914. The case before the court, as well as the preliminary negotiations, was conducted by Hughes in person. 16 International Socialist, 4th November rg1t. 17 Worker, 6th October 1900. 18 Newcastle Wharf Labourers’ Union v. Newcastle and Hunter River Steamship Co., 1 N.S.W.A.R., 1. 19 Sydney Wharf Labourers’ Union v. Sydney Stevedores’, Wool Dumping and Lighterage Association, 2 N.S.W.A.R., 143-50.

106

ON THE WATERFRONT

Hughes almost at once established an extraordinary ascendancy over the members of the union. There is no better evidence of his personal magnetism

than the control he exercised over them, and the combination of respect and admiration in which they held him. His policy of moderation was not popular with the extremists, and he was subject from time to time to violent attacks from both inside and outside the union, but on every occasion after he had spoken the storm would subside and the meeting would reassert its full confidence in him. Thus in February 1900, after Hughes had strongly opposed affiliation with the Sydney Labor Council, one member wrote a

letter expressing the view that in his opinion “Mr Hughes’ speech at the previous meeting savoured of blackleg”. The letter having been read, the member in question “apologised and explained that he had no intention of making any aspersion on Mr Hughes’ character”, and the meeting recorded its disapproval of the letter.°° On another occasion, a deputation from the Tailoresses’ Union, then on strike, was refused a hearing until its leader,

the ubiquitous H. E. Holland, “withdrew and apologised for certain malicious charges he had made against Mr Hughes”. Holland refused, and at the next meeting “Messrs Holland and Hughes met by arrangement to settle some differences re charges made by the former”. After both gentlemen had been attentively listened to, a motion was carried almost unanimously “that this meeting, having heard Mr Holland’s attempted justification of his charges and Mr Hughes’ reply thereto, re-afhrms its unshaken confidence in Mr Hughes and wishes to place on record its deep sense of gratitude for his untiring efforts on behalf of this Union and for his services in the cause of labour generally”.** But perhaps the most vivid picture is the sketch by Sir Henry Gullett, who in 1900 was a young reporter on the staff of the Sydney Morning Herald. The first time I saw him [he recalled] was on a night at the Church Hall in Sydney immediately prior to Federation. He stood at bay, a sallow, emaciated

figure ... in a hall crowded with truculent wharf labourers, and fogged with the smoke of strong pipes. There was bitter faction on the wharves. The men were inflamed and were strong for a strike. Hughes was for conciliation (as he usually was in Labor disputes), and he stood up single handed to the angry mob. He reasoned and pleaded with them; he ridiculed them; he swore at them and assailed them as a host of misguided idiots. The meeting ended in wild cheers for him, and there was no strike.??

Though one might have thought the Sydney Wharf Labourers enough for one man, Hughes was extremely active in the early part of IQOI in assisting in the formation of other unions. ‘Thus in February and March he “0 S.W.L.U. Minutes, 21st February 1900. 21S5,W.L.U. Minutes, 18th and 23rd December rgor. 22 Herald (Melbourne), 4th August 1923. 107

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

addressed meetings of cabmen, marble-workers, and fishermen, and assisted in the establishment of a storemen’s union. In addition, he organized the Trolley, Draymen and Carters’ Union, and with this he retained a permanent connection, holding office as president until 1916, taking an active part in

the work of the union, and fighting its battles and that of its members before the courts as occasion required. This was closely related to his work with the wharf labourers, and was to some extent a supplement to it. Most of the members of the union were employed carting from the wharves to the adjacent warehouses and to the Sussex Street produce stores. A number

of them worked intermittently as wharf labourers, and were already members of that union. Though employment was on a weekly rather than a

casual basis, the carters were even worse off in many respects than the waterside workers. Thirty-five shillings for a week of sixty hours was the common pay, and the men had to look after their horses outside these hours. Unorganized, they offered a likely source of alternative labour should the need arise; organized, they could be valuable allies in any dispute on the wharves. It was natural that they should turn to Hughes to help them, and

that he should do so. A meeting was held at the Trades Hall on 2nd February 1go1, and the union was officially formed, with Hughes at its head.*4

When Hughes left for Melbourne in May rgor, he had already conceived the idea of a federation to unite all the waterside unions of the Australian ports, and he had secured the authority of his own union to negotiate for such a federation.*” In Melbourne he got together a provisional committee of Labor members representing waterfront constituencies, and this com- _ mittee wrote to all the unions to ascertain their attitude to the proposal. Sufficient favourable replies were received to encourage the formation of a federation, and in December 1901 Hughes, at a meeting of the Sydney Union, “outlined a scheme of Federation among the Waterside Workers which he had brought to a successful issue”.*‘ The Federation was formally inaugurated at a meeting at Parliament House, Melbourne, on 7th February 1902, representing twelve unions with a total membership of about 6300, of which 2800 were in Sydney.** Other unions came in later so that by the end of the year eighteen societies were represented. Hughes was elected president, F. W. Bamford, from North Queensland, vice-president, Senator de Largie, from Western Australia, treasurer, and Joe Morris, of Melbourne, secretary. Andrew Fisher and Senator Higgs, both Queenslanders, were also “3 §.M.H., 4th February, 22nd February, 1st March, 4th March, 1go1. “+ 5.M.H., 4th February 1901.

25 S.W.L.U. Minutes, 1st May 1gor. 26J, Healy, “Brief History of the Australian Waterfront” (duplicated typescript), 1. 27S.W.L.U. Minutes, 18th December r1gor. “8 W.W.F. Minutes, 7th February 1902. 108

ON THE WATERFRONT

on the original committee, which was later enlarged as more unions joined the Federation. All the members except Morris were politicians, and none of these except Hughes was closely associated with the industry, though

Fisher, a miner, is said to have been a member of the Maryborough (Queensland) Union. The larger unions were at first inclined to fight shy of the Federation, thinking they could best look after their own interests. Melbourne stood out for some time, and even Sydney hesitated. At the second meeting of the Federation committee a letter was received from the “Sydney Branch” “re quarterly dues”, and the minutes record succinctly: “Sydney Branch. The President said he would attend to the matter.”*? The Sydney Union was at this time much occupied with preparing to register with the newly established State Arbitration Court, and apparently it had been suggested that this would prevent them from joining the Federation, or at any

rate render it unnecessary. So, returning to Sydney, an obviously very annoyed secretary faced a special meeting of the union. Mr Hughes said that he was at a loss to know what we did not comprehend in the constitution of the Waterside Workers’ Federation. The stages of the negotiation were not hurried and lasted some time and we had therefore ample time at our disposal to express either our disapproval or hesitancy. After

having been appointed our agent or mouthpiece in the matter, it was rather painful to him to find that not only were we the only union which had not paid up, but that we were inclined to revoke and repudiate the authority with which we had previously invested him. If we entered into a contract and something afterwards turned up to make it unpayable that was no excuse for our backing out. We had entered into this contract and authorised him to act not as W. M. Hughes—but as the Secretary of the Sydney Wharf Laborers’ Union—the most numerous, important and influential Waterside Union in Australia.

If we wished at any time to revoke his authority he gave us a chance to

do so; but instead we decided otherwise. He sent over rules for acceptance and got a reply that the Union had passed a resolution authorising Mr Harrison to pay the money, but on the following Wednesday night we rescinded it. Why the resolution was not acted on there and then or the money paid he could not understand. The reason alleged was that Mr Addi-

son [the Registrar of the New South Wales Arbitration Court] could not allow our funds to go outside the State, but he contended that Mr Addison had nothing more to do with it than Li Hung Chang. He pointed out the only instance in which the Arbitration Court could intervene was when we transferred our funds to a third party for the purpose of avoiding payment of an award. Referring to the Arbitration Act he said that every man seemed to be permeated with a fear of what the law was going to do with him and we had blossomed all at once into a very law-abiding community. 29 W.W.F. Minutes, 13th March 1902. 109

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

No law in the wide world, he contended, could make a man work when he refuses to work or when he chooses not to work with any particular man or body of men. The Act was no doubt a very good thing but was not a settlement of all

human difficulties. If we are going to sit down and rely wholly on the Arbitration Court to adjust our grievances and look after our interests then what is the good of our Union to us, for the Court will do as much for 5, Io or 50 men as it will for 3,000. If we are relying on the law to enforce rates of wages then according to our agreement the Union was useless. But

this was all tommyrot, he said, and every concession wrung from the employers was not through dread of the law but through the stability of our own Union. Supposing the Court decides to reduce our rate of pay to gd. an hour, are

we going to calmly fold our arms and make no effort to better our conditions? The Court may prevent a strike but through the Waterside Workers’ Federation we can incommode the shipping at all the ports along the coast. On the other hand, if we win in the Court, all Australia wins. But if we don’t get 1s. 3d. an hour in the Court then we may rest assured that, in any action which we may decide upon, we will have the active assistance and

co-operation of the other Coastal Unions who will be in a position to inconvenience and harass the shipping at the various ports of call. But to suppose that 3,000 men are going to rely on Judge Cohen giving them 1s. 3d. an hour is most astounding. If there is no chance of benefit for us under this Federation there is for the other Unions and consequently we must benefit indirectly. West Australia, he pointed out, although an Arbitration Act was in force there, was the first to join the Federation. He pointed out that the Shipowners were increasing their freights all round the coast and through

this Waterside Federation we will be able, instead of dealing with them singly, to deal with them all over Australia at one and the same time. He finally urged that if we don’t win we must sit tight and allow the other unions to try for us.

He then went on to explain the penal clauses of the new Act, and what would and what would not constitute a “cessation of work” under them. When he had finished “A controversy took place re non payment of contribution to Waterside Workers’ Federation but eventually ... it was decided that it be paid forthwith”. Once again, Hughes had prevailed over what was obviously a very ticklish meeting.” I have quoted the record of this speech at length because, as well as

illustrating Hughes’s relations with the rank and file, it is the fullest surviving exposition of his conception of industrial strategy. This was based

ultimately on the strength of the union itself. The Arbitration Court was an important instrument, a channel for negotiation and a means of enforcing agreements, but it was not the final word. The Federation he envisaged 30 S.W.L.U. Minutes, 31st March 1902. TIO

ON THE WATERFRONT

as the coping-stone of the whole system—the means by which the whole

strength of the Australian watersiders could be brought to bear at any point, so that weakness in one place could be balanced by strength at another; the Commonwealth-wide organization of the shipowners could be met by organization likewise Commonwealth-wide; and any gain in conditions in one place could be made general over the whole industry. In a real sense, then, he saw the Federation as the culmination of his work of organization. By the end of 1902, barely two years after he had taken up the cause of the wharf labourers, the whole structure had been completed. The union was in a strong position financially, and numerically it included almost all the regular workers on the Sydney wharves. Very substantial gains in hours and wages had been made and consolidated in an award, legally enforceable, which included the eight-hour day, a minimum rate of

1s. 3d. an hour with higher rates prescribed for special cargoes and for overtime, and preference to unionists, and these gains had been conceded by the employers almost without any cost to the union. Allied to the union

was the Trolley, Draymen and Carters’ Union, which also recognized Hughes as its leader, and he was the recognized spokesman for the Federation, representing over 6,000 watersiders from Fremantle to Cairns. For this achievement Hughes himself was very largely responsible and he

stood out, in the first years of the Commonwealth, as perhaps the most powerful and certainly the most spectacularly successful leader in the Australian industrial field since the rise of the Australian Workers’ Union two decades before. This position had been won entirely by energetic organization and shrewd and fearless bargaining, without a strike and virtually without expense to the unions concerned.

111

CHAPTER VIII

A Nation is Born N 1st JANUARY Igor the Commonwealth came into being amid a

() burst of pageantry and rejoicing unparalleled in the short history

of Australia. Any misgivings were laid aside for the time, and all joined in the celebrations to which a whole week was given over.

The pomp of military and civil display, the blare of trumpets, the roar of artillery, the fluttering of flags, and the brilliancy of illuminations in the cities, with the glare of bonfires on hundreds of hills throughout the country, were the outward and visible signs by which people expressed their joy at the consummation of their wishes. The prospect of amalgamating the interests of six Colonies ... had been dangled before the community for more than a dozen years. At last it was an accomplished fact; and though there were some dissentients . . . the vast majority were heedlessly confident that they were entering upon the responsibilities of nationhood, under conditions of happy augury and roseate promise.?

Since Melbourne was to be the seat of government and the scene of the

royal opening of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney, still slightly smaller than the southern capital, was chosen as the scene of the proclamation of the Commonwealth and the centre of the accompanying banquets and processions. Lord Hopetoun, the first Governor-General, had arrived

only a few days earlier. His first duty was to choose a Government to assume control of the new Commonwealth on its inauguration. Arriving tired by an illness contracted on the voyage, and with little time to spare, he had first approached Lyne as Premier of the senior and largest State. This course, which had been strongly advocated by the Worker as the only one constitutionally possible as early as the previous November,” and which had clearly been anticipated by both Reid and Lyne in the manoeuvres of

the previous year that had brought the latter into office, caused dismay among the group of federalists around Barton and Deakin, and has since given rise to much criticism of Hopetoun, though some modern historians, such as Turner and more recently Sawer, have affirmed its correctness. After a few days of frenzied consultations, however, Lyne found himself unable to form a Cabinet strong enough to satisfy the Governor-General, and on 1H. G. Turner, The First Decade of the Australian Commonwealth (Melbourne, 1911), 1. 2 Worker, 24th November 1900. 112

A NATION IS BORN

31st December Barton’s Ministry was announced, to the general satisfaction.°

If Hughes was disappointed at the failure of Lyne, whom he had put into office in New South Wales and with whom he was accustomed to work, he did not say so. Meanwhile, preparations to welcome the Governor-General and inaugurate the Commonwealth had been put in hand by the Government of New South Wales. Lyne, as Premier, had sent for Hughes and charged him

with the task of organizing, in collaboration with the Sydney Labor Council, a contribution from the workers worthy of the occasion. Here was an opportunity for organized labour to assert, right at the outset and before the eyes of the Governor-General and the assembled notabilities, its importance as a component part of the new Commonwealth, and Hughes seized

on it with enthusiasm. Rapidly he sketched out a plan for a grand procession of trades in their distinctive costumes, and, as the préce de résistance,

a band of mounted shearers, equipped in true bush style, each leading a packhorse. Lyne’s assent was enthusiastic—neither time nor money was to be spared.*

A scrap of paper preserved by Hughes records the adoption of the scheme by the Council. On it he has jotted down: January 1st. Allegorical car typifying staple industries of the Colony. 30 shearers on horses. 10 from all other Unions in working costume with tools of trade. Estimated cost £200. Saturday Jan. 5th. Procession of Trades Unions as in 8 hours day and sports at Kensington. Cost £1000.

Each proposal is endorsed with the approval of H. J. Lamond as chairman, and on the back is noted the appointment of McGowen, Hughes, and J. Cochran as trustees to attend to all disbursements.° The adoption of his proposals did not end Hughes’s problems. Donald Macdonell, the general secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union, under-

took to provide the shearers, and Lyne suggested to Hughes that their colleague in the New South Wales Parliament, W. N. Willis, could help with the horses. Willis, it turned out, was about to receive a large consign-

ment of young bush horses “without a nailmark in their hooves” from Queensland. Hughes rode out to St Mary’s and, after inspection, bought forty, to be delivered next day at Darling Harbour. There he met them with

Macdonell and his band of shearers, and, having with some difficulty saddled their mounts, terrified by their long journey and the sights and sounds of the goods-yard, they emerged into George Street and set out in 3 Turner, 12; G. Sawer, Australian Federal Politics and Law, 1901-1929 (Melbourne, 1956), 3. For a full discussion of this incident see J. A. La Nauze, The Hopetoun Blunder (Melbourne,

aan M. Hughes, Policies and Potentates (Sydney, 1950), 42-3. 5 Hughes Papers, 1900.

113

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

mad career across the city. Finally they reached Moore Park, where a brass band had been placed in waiting behind a sandhill to prepare the horses for what they would face on the great day. As it struck up the horses, which had begun to quieten down after their first gallop, leapt as one beast into the air and set off helter-skelter back to the city. Hughes, on a horse chosen for him by Macdonell as “as quiet as a sheep” led the rush to Oxford Street, where he lost contact with the rest, but eventually made his way to the rendezvous in the Domain, to which, one by one, the shearers and their horses straggled in. The only casualty was a professional horse-breaker from Coolangatta, whose horse had fallen with him right at the start on Brickfield Hill! It was obvious that more rehearsals would be necessary, but hard work in the next few days brought the horses to a more reasonable frame of mind, and when the time came all went off smoothly.® The proceedings commenced on Tuesday, rst January, with the formal landing of the Governor-General at Man-of-War Steps and with the reading in Centennial Park of the Royal Proclamation inaugurating the Commonwealth, and, for Hughes, and those he represented, reached their climax in the great Trades Procession on Saturday. Though Tuesday was dull and

overcast, with heavy rain later in the day, on Saturday the weather was perfect, and the procession was worthy of the occasion and of all the prepara-

tions that had been lavished upon it. Among the floats representing the various trades of the colony, the place of honour was taken by “the Shearers’ Union with their triumphal car. The banner of the A.W.U,, followed by 24 members on horseback, two six-horse lorries, highly decorated, containing

sheep shearers; more members of the A.W.U. on foot.” Further on came two mounted men in full armour, representing the Tinsmiths and Sheet Iron Workers’ Society, and the procession was completed by Hughes’s own

union, the Sydney Wharf Labourers, “with their banner, and a ship on a car laden with wool, and by wharf labourers singing chanties (the ship was named Federation)”. At the luncheon that followed, Hughes was chosen to propose the toast of “The Commonwealth”, which he did in a short speech, referring to his efforts to secure a better constitution and pledging himself to “loyally do all in his power to assist in cementing the bonds of friendship now established”. As a practical token of these bonds, he was supported by Trenwith, the Victorian labour leader, who declared his belief that “as an

instrument of government the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth was the best in the world for the purpose of rendering true democratic government possible”.*

Hughes was one of the earliest of the Labor Party to declare himself as a Federal candidate, choosing as his constituency West Sydney, which in6 Policies and Potentates, 43-5.

7 $.M.H., 7th January 1got. 114

A NATION IS BORN

cluded the Lang Division State electorate, as well as the adjoining waterside Phillip Division, where he was almost equally well known.’ Once Federation

was established, however critical he might be of its form, there can have been no doubt in his mind where his future lay. All the great national questions—external relations, defence, industrial arbitration and immigration

—were explicitly included in the Federal freld. It was clear too, to one of Hughes’s shrewdness, that any real and substantial gain in social conditions and living standards would be won by Federal pressure, and not by action in the six separate State Governments, hampered as these must necessarily be by considerations of interstate competition and provincial jealousies, as well as by the obstruction of reactionary Upper Houses. The story of social reform in Australia since Federation affords many instances that vindicate

Hughes’s judgment on this point, and make Holman’s magnification of State functions, quoted by Dr Evatt, look like shallow special pleading, especially in the light of the achievement of the Federal Parliament in its first ten years.”

The prestige, too, of the Federal Parliament stood very high. The two campaigns for federation had stimulated public interest, and the most promi-

nent men in all the colonies were determined, now that the details of the Constitution had been for the time settled, to do their best to make it work successfully, and offered themselves for election.

At first it looked as if Hughes might not be opposed. He was known as a staunch free-trader, and that party did not propose to run a candidate against him. There was an attempt to organize opposition by some of the shopkeepers of the district, who could not forgive the active part he had played in putting the Early Closing Act on the statute-book.*® Later an opponent came forward on behalf of the Protectionists, an undistinguished alderman named J. C. Beer, whom the Worker described as “a flat, stale and unprofitable person, probably run only in the interests of Bung—to ensure a contest. For nothing causes the publican to prosper like an election.”!4 The joke gained flavour from the fact that Beer was a staunch teetotaller. A complete outsider, J. V. Hanrahan, of whom nothing is otherwise known, completed the list of candidates. Meanwhile Hughes had started his campaign in earnest. A meeting of his supporters on 21st February appointed sub-committees for each section 8 §.M.H., 14th January 1901, and Worker, 26th January 1901, refer to Hughes as a declared candidate, though his candidature was not officially announced until 22nd February, when also the Federal Labor platform was published. 9 Evatt, 138: “But, under the new Constitution, the State Parliament, and it alone, could legislate in respect of the matters which most affected the lives and well-being of citizens. .. . From now on... the only three matters of importance with which Federal Parliament could deal were the questions of immigration, customs and excise, and defence.” 10 D.T., oth February 1901. 11 Worker, 23rd March 1901; D.T., 27th February 1gor.

115

I

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

of the electorate, which, although compact in area, was the fourth largest in New South Wales in point of population, containing 14,500 voters.** Already, before the official Labor campaign had been opened, Hughes had taken advantage of an interview with the Bulletin to reveal the lines of his thinking on the main questions of national policy. I’m afraid the Federal Parliament will have very little to do with fixing the hours of Labor and levelling-up wages by means of minimum-wage Acts —that will mostly be left to the States. Still, all the big Unions, such as the maritime unions, wharf labourers’ and others are interstate, and once a labour dispute gets outside one State the Federal Govt. can intervene with arbitration.

And of course an Arbitration Court can fx a minimum wage and limit the hours of labour in any industry. And any dispute can be made inter-state if necessary. Still, it is a roundabout way of doing it, and it seems a pity we couldn’t settle it all with one comprehensive Act... . Our chief plank is, of course, a White Australia. There’s no compromise about that. The industrious coloured brother has to go—and remain away! While on that question, no doubt, we shall be able to do something to prevent the influx of European “pauper” labour by instituting educational tests and making it necessary to have enough money to last a month or two without work. Also importation of labour under contract must be prohibited. Then there’s the codification and amendment of the Banking Laws and the establishment of an Australian National Bank, to be run on strictly business, as distinct from political, lines. There are other things, plenty of them, but the great questions are—White Australia, Old-Age Pensions, a National Bank, and a Democratic Military System. We shall, at the jump, tackle the question of making the Old-Age Pension system apply to the whole continent.

The military question is one the party will have to watch closely. It will want careful adjustment. This country can’t afford a big standing army, and

doesn’t want it if it could. The standing army means the military caste, altogether antagonistic to democratic practices and ideals, as seen in the insolence and cruelty of the German officers to civilians. Citizen soldiers are cheaper, and the Boer War has proved their efficiency for defence. The whole population (male) ought to be trained to arms, every male between 18 and 21 undergoing three months training every year, of which six weeks should be continuous. By 21 he should be a fair soldier and a respectable shot. After 21 the term might be shortened so long as he kept his shooting up to standard. I take it this country doesn’t want an offensive army, but an armed people who

can shoot straight, and a regimental machine so that every man can fall automatically into his place no matter how suddenly the trouble comes. Straight shooting should be encouraged by assistance to rifle-clubs and national prizes for good marksmanship. Encourage shooting till it becomes the national sport, as archery used to be in England. 12 ),.T., 22nd and 27th February 1go1. 13 Bulletin, 16th February 1901. 116

A NATION IS BORN

In the opening speech of his campaign, delivered in the Freemasons’ Hall, York Street, he gave a fuller and more formal statement of his views on the principal topics of the day. The report in the Sydney Morning Herald

is worth quoting almost in full: Some seven years ago he sought the suffrages of the electors of Lang Division for the State Parliament, and since then he had represented that electorate. He was now a candidate duly accredited by the same party, the labour party, for the Federal Parliament. His platform was the platform of the labour party. He traced the history of the federal movement since 1891. He said that everybody deplored the blots upon the Constitution that had been adopted. In New South Wales 82,000 people voted against the bill, and he believed

that they were right to such an extent that if the matter were before the people to-day there could be no doubt about the fate of the bill. In the Federal Parliament they would see a minority flout the majority of Australia. The financial clauses had resulted in the greatest financial absurdity that Australia or the world had ever seen. They were confronted with the bill as it stood, and there was no reasonable chance of its being amended. The duty of the electors was to return men to deal with this measure. A tariff had to be raised which would have to produce about £8,500,000. There was nothing

in this Constitution that would prevent this sum being raised by direct taxation.

However, Mr Barton had declared that £8,500,000 was to be raised by a tariff with which every reasonable man would be satished. Mr Deakin said the tariff would be one that would suit every Victorian. Since a tariff had to be raised he did not think they could grumble at a 15 per cent. tariff, but Mr Deakin had assured the Victorians that the tariff would suit Victorian industries. Mr Deakin had the other states behind him, and he evidently did not mean what Mr Barton and Sir William Lyne meant with regard to the tariff.

He (Mr Hughes) had never been able to see that men were better off under protection than free trade. The trades unionists knew all about that from bitter experience. The salvation of the workers was never to be found in protection, though he did not say that protection could do nothing. At the same time the industries that deserved protection were not the ones that received it. If they had a protective tariff—and they could not have a really protective tarifi—then they would have to shut out pauper labour in every shape and form. Those gentlemen who were advocating protection were those who would import contract labour and pauper labour to reduce the wages of the workers. The other colonies would struggle for a tariff as near as possible to their

existing tariffs. If he was returned to the Federal Parliament he would endeavour to make as little change in the present tariff of New South Wales as was compatible with raising the necessary sum of £8,500,000. 117

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

The Upper House in the Federal Parliament had the same power as the Lower House except with regard to the introduction of money bills. Practically the Senate could defy the House of Representatives. He believed that

the majority should rule, and if elected he would endeavour to get the Constitution amended to that effect. That would be a difficult thing, and they would be lucky if they got it within ro years.

Mr Barton had said the Kanaka must go. Lately in Queensland, Mr Barton had not been so emphatic as to when the Kanaka must go.

The Asiatic aliens were much more dangerous to the social life of Australia. The labour party had always been against coloured labour, and would see that the kanaka went—not in 20 years time—but to-morrow, and the labour party would overcome the kanaka party. There would be a necessity in the Federal Parliament for the sharp spur of the labour party to keep the Ministry up to its pledges. He had stated what he would do in regard to the tariff, and as for the rest of Mr Barton’s programme he would support it because it was the platform of the labour party. He was opposed to a trans-continental railway and in favour of an adult suffrage. The Commonwealth must have power to exclude the white pauper labour of Europe. He believed in a volunteer defence force but would oppose a large standing army, as it would be a menace to democracy."

In subsequent speeches Hughes traversed much the same ground, laying special emphasis on the fiscal question. He stressed the importance of free trade to the shipping and waterside interests of Sydney, by which many of his constituents lived, and promised to press for the lowest possible tariff that would suffice for the revenue of the Commonwealth. He touched, too,

on the subject of industrial arbitration, which, he pointed out, could be dealt with by the Federal Parliament as well as by State Legislatures. “He favoured getting a suitable measure dealing with arbitration placed on the Statute Book of the Commonwealth as soon as possible”, in order to obtain some degree of uniformity through the Commonwealth.” The poll, which took place on 29th March, resulted as follows:

Hughes, W. M. (Lab. F.T.) 6,652

Beer, J. C. (P.) 2,062 Hanrahan, J. V. (P.) 307

Informal 279

Of 14,661 enrolled, 9,300, or 63 per cent, had recorded votes, a high percentage for the days before compulsory voting, and a tribute to the efficacy

of Hughes’s campaign and the interest in the new Parliament. At the 14 5.M.H., 6th March 1901 (my paragraphing). 15 D.T., 9th and 13th March 1901; S.M.H., 11th, 13th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 26th March 1901. 118

A NATION IS BORN

declaration of the poll, the successful candidate, with some truth, declared, “It would not have mattered who my opponent had been—the result would have been the same.’*® The first Federal Parliament was opened in Melbourne on gth May 1gor by the Duke of York, later to reign as King George V, amid scenes of great

pomp and pageantry. :

When the newly elected Labor members gathered in Melbourne, they had no Federal organization, nor had the State parties any experience of common action, or even common rules and platform. Each had developed independently as the exigencies of its own State politics had dictated, and they were at very different stages of development. New South Wales with its ten years’ successful record in manipulating the balance of power, was probably the most advanced, and its party certainly saw itself as the model for the Federal party. Queensland, with political action rooted in the great shearing strikes, was also well advanced, and the party had even held office, if only for six days. The problems of party unity and discipline, however, had not yet been solved. In Victoria, where much of the social-reformist programme had been anticipated by the liberal-protectionist party, a separate political Labor Party had not emerged until 1899, and it was still little more

than an industrial wing of the Protectionist party. In South Australia, too, where politics for a decade had been dominated by the radical figure of

Kingston, labour had had no occasion for separate action, and E. L. Batchelor had held office under Holder up to the time of his election to the Federal Parliament. In Western Australia, which had only gained represen-

_ tative government in 1890, and which had since been under the almost personal rule of Sir John Forrest, labour was still a purely trade-union organization, and in Tasmania there was no labour organization at all. In each State, the election had been contested by the State organization, and though there was a common general purpose among the Labor members, there was as yet no common organization or agreed policy. Some attempt, it is true, had been made to lay the foundation for a Federal party, but the result had been rather to reveal more clearly the difficulties. Early in 1900, when Federation had been adopted, the executive

of the New South Wales Political Labor League had taken the initiative in calling an interstate conference on the formation of a Federal Labor Party. Delegates from all the mainland States except Western Australia had

met, together with the executive of the Political Labor League, Hughes being one of the delegates, on 24th January 1goo. After much discussion, it was agreed to allow Labor candidates a free hand on the fiscal question, the

Victorians entering a protest, and a very general platform of four planks was adopted. The conference, in any case, had no power to bind the various 16 §.M.H., 30th March 1901.

11g

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

State bodies. These decisions were endorsed by the New South Wales Annual Conference, which also adopted a pledge for Federal candidates, which it circulated to the other States to serve as a model for a uniform pledge. How far it was adopted by them is not recorded." The Labor members who assembled in Melbourne represented a wide diversity of experience. Two-thirds of them had been active in one way or another in the trade-union movement, and nearly as many had seen service in one of the State Parliaments. The six members from New South Wales, all in the House of Representatives, included Hughes, Watson, and W. G. Spence, veteran organizer of the strikes of the early nineties and architect of the Australian Workers’

Union, but a late-comer to Parliament, where he never seemed quite at home. The other three, Josiah Thomas, a Cornish miner from Broken Hill, David Watkins, born and bred on the Newcastle coalfield, and Thomas Brown, a farmer from the central tableland who had defeated B. R. Wise for the Canobolas seat, were all veterans of the first Solidarity Party of 1894. McGowen had also been a candidate, but had been defeated and returned to State politics, where he presently became the first Labor Premier.

The other strong group came from Queensland, which sent three senators and four representatives. Among the former was Anderson Dawson,

Queensland-born bushman and miner, whose power of self-expression brought him, for six days in 1899, to the head of the first Labor Government anywhere in the world. The representatives included Andrew Fisher, who had started work in an Ayrshire coalpit at the age of nine. With his handsome presence and imposing moustache, though a man of no great intellectual or oratorical gifts, Fisher radiated solidity and trustworthiness, an impression heightened by his Ayrshire burr. Another was Charles McDonald,

who brought to the mastery of Standing Orders all the pernickety meticulousness of his trade of watchmaking, and who was to become in due course Chairman of Committees and Speaker. These three had all been in the State Parliament since 1893.

From Western Australia came two senators and two representatives. Senator Hugh de Largie was a Scottish miner who had taken a prominent part in union affairs and had presided over the first Labor Congress in Western Australia. Senator George Pearce was a skilled cabinet-maker and joiner who had emigrated from South Australia to the western goldfields and had later been an active trade-unionist in Perth. Inclined at first to aggressiveness, he soon learnt to hold himself under strict control which was sometimes mistaken for lack of warmth, and his “deliberate inquiring mind” 17 Worker, 3rd and 1oth February 1900. Cf. L. F. Crisp, The Australian Federal Labour Party, 1901-1951 (London, 1955), 25-6, 261-2. For an assessment by Hughes of the position as it appeared immediately after the election, see D.T., 2nd April 1901. 120

A NATION IS BORN

and detached sagacity were to make him a valued counsellor.!* The two representatives were oddly contrasted. Hugh Mahon, an Irish journalist from Coolgardie, had been Parnell’s secretary and had tasted the inside of Kilmainham Jail with him before coming to Australia. J. M. Fowler, a prim Scottish accountant and ex-prospector, represented Perth. He had been the Organizing Secretary of the Federal League in Western Australia. South Australia sent only one senator and one representative, Senator

Gregor McGregor, a pawky builder’s labourer who by sheer force of character, aided by an exceptional memory, had triumphed over the handicap

of almost complete blindness to preside over his State Labor Party and sit for six years in the Legislative Council, and E. L. Batchelor, pupilteacher turned engineer and union official, whose unassuming manner masked a fund of quiet wisdom. Batchelor had been a member of the House of Assembly since 1893, and at the time of Federation was Minister for Education and Agriculture. Victoria also had two representatives, Frank Tudor, a journeyman hatter by trade and a protectionist by conviction, and the Reverend J. B. Ronald, a Presbyterian clergyman. Tasmania had one senator, D. J. O’Keefe, miner, journalist, and A.W.U. organizer. To complete the number—though, since he had been elected as an indepen-

dent, not till after the first Caucus—came from Tasmania the flamboyant red-bearded King O’Malley “whose outward appearance suggested a threefold compromise between a wild west romantic hero from the cattle ranches, a spruiker from Barnum’s Circus, and a Western American statesman”! A Canadian (he used to say that only five miles had separated him from the Presidency of the United States), or American (those same five miles the

other way would have barred him from the Australian Parliament), O’Malley had had some experience of selling insurance and real estate and, he claimed, of banking, and in private life was a shrewd and hard-headed

investor. In picturesque language he equalled, and in his genius for selfadvertisement he excelled, Hughes himself, and there was never any love lost between the two men.”° Of the twenty-four members of both Houses who finally constituted the Labor Party in the first Commonwealth Parliament, eleven were Australian born. Seven were Scots, and at least three others of Scots parentage.

Three were born in England, one in Ireland (with two others of Irish blood), and two elsewhere. All but two were Protestants.** 18G, F, Pearce, Carpenter to Cabinet (London, 1951), 47; J. Merritt, “George Foster Pearce and the Perth Building Trades Strike of 1897”, Bulletin of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, 11 (November 1962), 21. 19 G. Cockerill, Seribblers and Statesmen (Melbourne, 1944), 113-14. 20 On the mystery of King O’Malley’s birthplace see D. Catts, King O’Malley: Man and

Statesman (Sydney, 1957), 6-10. Among the O’Malley Papers in the National Library, Canberra, is a copy of a statutory declaration that he was born in Canada.

21 Data from L. F. Crisp and S. P. Bennett, “Australian Labor Party: Federal Personnel 1901-1954” (duplicated, Canberra, 1954).

I2I

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Two days before the opening of Parliament, nine of the Labor members

who had already arrived in Melbourne met under the chairmanship of | Senator Dawson to discuss the formation of a Federal party, and the following day a more formal caucus of about twenty members elected Watson as leader in the House of Representatives and Senator McGregor of South Australia leader in the Senate. No deputy leader was appointed then or for some years afterwards, the leader in the Senate acting as deputy when necessary. It was decided to assert the separate existence of the party at once by putting Watson up to congratulate the Speaker on his election, and a committee consisting of one member from each State was appointed to draft a constitution, rules, and platform.”

These were presented to a meeting on 20th May which defined the party’s attitude to the Government. Eight senators and fourteen members of the House either attended or sent apologies, thus constituting the original Caucus. When the House met to commence business on 21st May, although four of the Labor Party’s members sat on the Government side of the cross benches and ten on the Opposition side, it was nevertheless a united party, fully prepared for the somewhat crude attempt made to win it over to the Opposition by Cook, who moved an amendment to the Address regretting the vagueness of the proposals to secure a White Australia. Speaking in the Senate on 22nd May, Senator McGregor bluntly announced, “We are for sale, and we will get the auctioneer when he comes, and take care that he

is the right man.” Cook’s bid, he intimated, was not high enough, and while Barton was prepared to put the policy of the party into effect, he would have their not uncritical support.”” All commentators are agreed as to the exceptionally high calibre of the new legislature. It was but natural [wrote Sir Littleton Groom long afterwards] that the first Parliament of the Commonwealth should attract to it men of outstanding abilities. The membership of such a Parliament appealed to their ambitions;

it stirred their patriotism; it created the desire to serve the new nation... . Of the seventy-five members whose names were entered on the first official roll of the House of Representatives, fifty-eight had been members of the several Parliaments in the colonies, now become States of the Commonwealth.

Ten of these had been Premiers, and twelve others had held ministerial office. Fourteen had been members of the Australian Federal Convention, 1897-8. Only seventeen members had not previous parliamentary experience.”4 22 Crisp, loc. cit., having had access to the Caucus Minutes, supersedes earlier accounts based on Press reports.

23 C.P.D. 1, 131. The names of the original Caucus members are given in S.M.H., 21st May 1901. They were later joined by James Page from Queensland and King O’Malley, bringing the number of Representatives to sixteen. Caucus met regularly once a week during session, usually on Wednesdays (Spence, 380). 24 Brisbane Courier, 29th November 1930.

122

A NATION IS BORN

Hughes himself has placed on record the high tone of the debates in those early days: The business of Parliament in the early years of Federation was controlled by its members to a very much greater extent than nowadays. The legislature was then a deliberative body, decisions were arrived at after questions had been thoroughly debated. Members took their duties very seriously, speeches were carefully prepared, authorities consulted, and every question considered on its merits. Parliament was then the supreme authority in something more than name, and not, as too often occurs in these days, a mere machine for registering Government decisions. The times were spacious, parliamentary business moved with leisurely and even tread. Measures were not rushed through Parliament without time being given for free and full discussion. These modern time-saving devices, limiting speeches, guillotining debates, were unknown. I have said that members took their duties seriously; they were not mere voting machines and Parliament was adjusted to these conditions, which gave free play, within wide limits, to the expression of individual opinion and the effect of argument. It is very rare in these days for members’ speeches, no matter how eloquent, to change opinions; but in the early years of Parliament, speeches frequently affected votes. No doubt, there was at times too much

talk; members, unrestrained by time limitations, went on and on. One stalwart managed to keep going for eight hours, winding up fresh and vigorous. But this did not prevent the despatch of public business, for Parliament sat almost continuously. Sittings were longer and the sessions extended over the greater part of the year.?°

Barton’s Ministry has been not unfairly described as a team of captains, and it is doubtful whether anyone but Barton could have held it together. His first lieutenant and Attorney-General was Alfred Deakin, the silvertongued orator and smooth and self-effacing conciliator of the federal movement. Both had entered politics in 1879. Each had first held office, Barton as Speaker, Deakin as Solicitor-General and Commissioner for Public Works, in 1883. Though neither had been Premier, both had given up what promised to be brilliant careers in their States to play the leading parts in the drama of Federation. Sir John Lyne, the Minister for Home Affairs, is already familiar to us as Premier of New South Wales. He had first entered politics in 1880 and held office in 1885. Sir John Forrest, whose massive build matched his

bluff and powerful personality, the last survivor of the heroic age of Australian exploration, had been an ex officio member of the Legislative Council

of Western Australia before responsible government, and ever since its coming in December 1890 he had ruled his State benevolently but autocratically as its unchallenged Premier, resigning only to enter the Federal Parlia25 Nation Building in Australia: the Life and Work of Sir Littleton Ernest Groom (Sydney, 1941), pt. Vv, 243-4.

123

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

ment. Sir George Turner, the Treasurer, was one of the few Ministers whose political thinking had been almost entirely conditioned by the decade before Federation, during which he had nursed Victoria out of the depression with the single-minded economy of a careful family solicitor rescuing a trustee estate from bankruptcy. He had entered politics only in 1889, had joined his first Ministry two years later, and been Premier from 1894 to 1899. Charles Cameron Kingston, like Forrest, was another big man and a born fighter. Heir to the strong tradition of South Australian radicalism, he had been first elected in 1881, had held office in 1884, and as Premier from 1893 to the end of 1899, had made South Australia the most progressive colony in Australia with women’s franchise and a State bank, factory legislation, village settlements, progressive land and income taxes and death duties. Precision and economy of language made him the greatest legal draftsman of his time. Unfortunately, by the time he entered the Federal Parliament domestic bereavement and incurable disease made him at times almost unbearably irritable. Of the lesser figures, Sir Philip Fysh, the Tasmanian representative, distinguished in a hirsute age by his flowing beard, had been in politics since 1866, held his first office in 1873, and had been twice Premier before 1890. At sixty-six he was the oldest member of the Cabinet, whose average age was fifty-three. The junior member, in political terms, was Senator J. G. Drake, of Queensland, whose parliamentary career had begun in 1888, and who had held office briefly in 1899. The number was completed by Senator R. E. O’Connor, the fidus Achates of Barton, a sound lawyer, urbane and courteous, who had been appointed to the Legislative Council of New South Wales in 1887 and had held office under Dibbs from 1891 to 1893.

Behind Barton on the Protectionist benches sat others scarcely less distinguished. Isaac Isaacs and H. B. Higgins were leaders of the Victorian Bar. Both had been prominent in the Federal Convention, where Higgins had been instrumental in having the arbitration power included in the Constitution. Isaacs, the son of a poor Jewish tailor, who had raised himself by sheer hard work, brilliant intellect, and consuming ambition, had entered Parliament in 1892 and been Attorney-General in Turner’s Ministry. Extremely widely read and with a marvellous memory, he was at the same time proud and aloof, “dogmatic by disposition, full of legal subtlety and the precise literalness and littleness of the rabbinical mind”.°° Entirely without humour, he was nevertheless the only man who ever quelled the rotund George Reid in repartee. Once as he glowered from the opposite front bench in disconcerting silence, as his wont was, at Reid’s witticisms, refusing to be

drawn into interjection, Reid in desperation addressed him: “The Right Honourable Minister looks as if he would like to eat me.” Quick as a flash, 26 Deakin, 68.

124

A NATION IS BORN

Isaacs snapped back, “The Right Honourable member has forgotten my religion.”*" Higgins, senior to Isaacs at the Bar, had not reached Parliament till two years later, and had lost his seat in 1g00 because of his outspoken opposition to the Boer War. Though a member of the Convention, he had

opposed the Federal Bill as “a bill to perpetuate provincialism”,”* and characteristically he had come to help the anti-Billites’s last stand in Sydney

in 1899 when the cause was hopeless in Victoria. An Irishman and a Methodist, he combined courtly manners and a scholarly mind with ultraradicalism, almost priggishly lofty principles, and Quixotic independence. Another Victorian barrister, Dr John Quick, came from Bendigo, where as

a boy he had worked in the mines. A member of the Age staff till he qualified for the Bar, he had sat in Parliament from 1880 to 1889, and thereafter had been one of the leaders of the campaign for federation. Also from Victoria, and a fanatical champion of that State’s radical protectionism, was Samuel Mauger, a hat manufacturer, founder of the Anti-Sweating League,

whose office in Bourke Street was the centre of half the movements for social reform in Melbourne.

The “father” of the House was W. H. Groom, from Queensland. A venerable figure, he had been transported to Australia as a lad of sixteen on the controversial ship Hashemy, and after a chequered career on the gold-

fields had built up for himself a position of universal trust and respect on the Darling Downs, where he had been elected first mayor of Toowoomba on its incorporation in 1861. The following year a by-election took him into the first Queensland Parliament and he sat continuously for thirty-eight years, being Speaker from 1883 to 1888. He resigned to enter the Federal Parliament, but died of influenza only three months after it met, to be succeeded by his son Littleton Groom, a graduate of Melbourne University and a barrister of promise, with whom, during his long Federal career, Hughes was to be closely associated on a number of occasions. J. M. Chanter, a New South Wales “hay and corn” protectionist from the western Riverina, whose career in Parliament went back to 1885, was Chairman of Committees, and

the Government Whip was another New South Wales rural member, Austin Chapman, saddler, publican, and rural business man, who had sat in the Legislative Assembly since 1891. On the opposite side of the House sat the Free Trade Party. Their leader

was George Reid, whose place during his frequent absences in Sydney attending to his legal business was taken by Sir William McMillan, lately knighted. Beside them on the front bench sat the veteran Bruce Smith, adapting himself with increasing difficulty to the new twentieth-century world, and Joseph Cook, ex-coalminer and Methodist preacher, doggedly 27 The writer heard this story from Sir Robert Garran. 28 Higgins, 10.

125

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

pugnacious, seeking every weakness in the Government’s armour. Sydney Smith, another veteran, had held office under Parkes as well as under Reid. Dugald Thomson, a retired Sydney merchant, brought wide business ex-

perience and acumen to the party. From South Australia came Patrick McMahon (“Paddy”) Glynn, “a little Irish barrister, large-nosed and florid, with a brogue as broad as he was long”,*® a passionate lover of Shakespeare and of poetry generally, of which he carried a great store in his head. In spite of a high-flown and pedantic manner, he had established a leading practice at the Adelaide Bar, had been a member of the House of Assembly since 1895, and had taken part in the Federal Convention of 1897-8, where he had interested himself especially in the River Murray. He was a copious writer on both law and literature and a general favourite, even if, like his great countryman Edmund Burke, he sometimes

...t00 deep for his hearers, still went on refining, And thought of convincing, while they thought of dining. The elder statesman of the Free Traders was seventy-one year old Sir Edward

Braddon, author of the “Braddon clause” in the Constitution, a former Indian Civil Servant with a distinguished record in the Mutiny, who had sat in the Tasmanian Parliament from 1879 to 1888 and, returning with a K.C.M.G. after four years in London as Agent-General, had been Premier from 1894 to 1899. Another colourful figure on this side was William Knox, a founder of both the Mount Lyell and Broken Hill Proprietary companies and one of the most powerful figures in the world of mining and finance in Australia. In the Speaker’s Chair sat F. W. Holder, not the least remarkable figure

in the House. A Methodist lay preacher and country journalist, he was swarthy, thin, and narrow-shouldered. In spite of his insignificant appearance, he had been one of the most influential figures at the 1897-8 Conven-

tion. He was Premier of South Australia at the time of Federation and, being prevented by his free-trade convictions from accepting office in Barton’s

Ministry, was nominated unopposed to the Chair, which he occupied with great distinction till his death in 1909, doing much to establish the high tone of the early Parliaments. In the House of Representatives as a whole, twenty-eight of the seventyfive members could look back on careers in politics launched before 18g, and thirty between that year and 1900. In such a company, it was hardly surprising that the Labor Party should be underrated, and that it should be tacitly assumed that the game would

be played under the same rules and about the same issues as had been traditional in the colonies; all the more since none of the Labor men had 29 Deakin, 59. £26

A NATION IS BORN

played any part in the various Federal Conventions or in any other way become known outside the boundaries of their own colonies. Only the members from New South Wales had some inkling of what could be done by a tightly disciplined party exploiting the balance of power to gain its objectives, and could guess at the power that might be wielded by the bland but determined Watson and his mercurial and on occasion vitriolic associate, Hughes. The lines of party division were not yet as clearly drawn as they were

later to become; they retained, in fact, a good deal of fluidity until 1909. The main division, separating Government from Opposition, was between Protectionists and Free Traders. The latter drew most of their support from New South Wales, the former from Victoria. The Protectionists ranged from advocates of the Victorian model through every shade of moderate to those like Sir John Forrest who had no real belief at all in protection, but accepted the need for a high tariff for revenue purposes. On other issues the division might not be the same, and even on the tariff local interests caused occasional divergences on particular items. The Free Trade Party, in general, included the more conservative elements—large importers like Sir William McMillan and representatives of well-to-do electorates like Bruce Smith. The

Protectionist Party, on the other hand, contained a number of advanced liberals who were largely in sympathy with the aims, if not the methods, of

the Labor Party, such men as Deakin, Isaacs, Higgins, Kingston, and Samuel Mauger. It contained also such staunch conservatives as Sir John Forrest, Sir Philip Fysh, and Robert Harper, the Melbourne merchant and flour-miller.

Holding the balance of power, and prepared to support provisionally whatever Government would give effect to most of their policy, was the Labor Party. Divided on the fiscal question, which they regarded as of secondary importance, its members voted solidly together on all questions affecting their class or party, or the fate of the Government. Decisions were taken in Caucus, and members were pledged to follow them. This compact and disciplined group, in a House where party and personal loyalties tended

to be fluid, was able to play a part out of all proportion to its numerical strength. There was hardly a Government in the first decade which was not dependent on Labor support, and therefore influenced by Labor policy.?°

80 The last two paragraphs come, slightly adapted, from Nation Building, pt. ii, 27-8. 127

CHAPTER Ix

Foundations of Policy HE FIRST PARLIAMENT, of which the first session lasted from May 1901

to October 1g02 and the second from May to October 1903, was a very full one. Much of the first session was necessarily occupied with the tariff, of which both the general policy and the detailed clauses had to be settled. In addition the administrative machinery of the Commonwealth had to be established and given legislative sanction, putting the departments taken over from the States on a uniform footing and providing for the new

needs of the Commonwealth. This was a task of no little magnitude and sometimes of considerable delicacy, even where no broad policy questions were involved, in view of all the vested interests and varying experience that had to be reconciled to create a Commonwealth service. Among the Acts of the first session were Electoral and Franchise Acts, of which the latter established universal adult suffrage, including women, for the whole Commonwealth, and a Public Service Act designed to eliminate patronage and prescribing a minimum wage, as well as a number of other machinery measures of far-reaching importance. It was urgent also to define the policy

of the Commonwealth on such broader issues as immigration restriction and defence, and to open discussion on such controversial matters as the Commonwealth’s role in industrial arbitration, the selection of a site for the

Federal Capital, and the taking over of British New Guinea, though no finality could be reached on them yet. Altogether the first Parliament was responsible for thirty-eight Acts of substantial importance, as well as twenty-

eight routine financial measures. Since there were as yet no established precedents, and since opinion was often divided across party lines, all this involved very full and lengthy debate, which the Government wisely made no effort to curtail.* Hughes’s maiden speech was made on the Address on 23rd May, towards the end of the debate. He expressed his general approval of the programme

put forward by the Government (Reid had already taunted Barton with having borrowed much of it from the Labor Party), with some sarcastic allusions to its extremely comprehensive coverage—“I cannot at present call

to mind any subject, important or unimportant, that has been omitted”— and the improbability of its all being carried through. He especially approved 1 Sawer, 21-2, 25-6, for an analysis of Acts and Bills laid aside in this Parliament. 128

FOUNDATIONS OF POLICY

the prominence given in the Governor-General’s speech to the White Australia policy, and elicited from Barton a promise to introduce also a measure

excluding pauper white labour, which was in some respects even more dangerous industrially than the coloured variety. After traversing some of the other proposals, he devoted the greater part of his speech to the tariff question. He put the Protectionists on the horns of a dilemma. Either the proposed tariff would be really protective, in which case it would exclude the items aimed at and there would be no revenue, or it would not exclude them, and would be a mere revenue tariff. A protective duty which would also produce the revenue necessary for the Commonwealth would of necessity become an ever ascending spiral. But if you put such high protective duties on half-a-dozen articles as to exclude their importation, in order to obtain the necessary revenue, next year you would have to tax some of the articles which were originally on the free

list, or increase the tax on those articles which were formerly only lightly taxed, and the more protection you gave the higher the customs taxation would

get. The protective duties would never be taken off the list, and you would have to raise your revenue taxation higher with each successive wave of protection.

Free trade, he urged, was not a panacea. It was merely the natural order of things. It existed from the beginning of commercial exchange, and still exists in all countries in the world, protectionist as well as free-trade. All men buy as cheaply as they can, and sell as dearly as they can. Free-trade does not profess

to be a remedy; it simply professes to be a reversion, where other policies have existed, to the natural order of things. Therefore, I do not say that freetrade is a remedy for the unemployed question, or that it will accomplish any of the wonderful things that people affirm protection will accomplish. But, since we now have an opportunity of choosing between two policies, I prefer to choose a free-trade policy, and lacking that, a revenue Tariff, because I believe it is best for the whole nation, and that any law which aims at anything but the benefit of the whole nation is class legislation, and class legis-

lation, though it may sometimes be necessary, and may sometimes be defended, is at all times an undesirable thing, theoretically and equitably, too.?

The tariff was in fact the most urgent and the most complicated business of the new Parliament. Absolute free trade, however natural, was out of the question, since it was common ground that under the Braddon clause the Commonwealth must raise sufficient revenue to cover its own expenses from a quarter of the amount and to return to the States enough to make up for their loss of their own customs duties. It was also ground common to the two major parties, though not accepted by the Labor Party, that the whole

2 C.P.D., I, 321-9 (23rd May 1901). : 129

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

amount, estimated at £ 8,500,000, must be raised through the customs and

that the Commonwealth must not engage in direct taxation. There was, however, considerable room for manoeuvre on the distribution of duties over

the various items and the purposes they were intended to serve. To the Victorian radicals led by Deakin and to South Australians like Kingston, protected industries were a necessary instrument for the development of national self-sufhciency and a balanced society, and the Victorians especially were anxious that the industries that had been built up under their high tariff

should not be exposed to the bleak winds of open competition. To them some parts of the tariff must be high enough to be exclusive, and therefore _ other items must provide the necessary revenue. At the other extreme were the Free Traders, with whom Hughes ranked himself, who regarded protection as a means of benefiting one section of the community at the expense of the whole, and who would have preferred to spread the duties as evenly as possible over a number of items of general consumption or, in the case of the Labor Party, of luxuries. Between these came a large number, of whom Barton was representative, who were prepared to concede a certain degree of protection, as a matter of necessity rather than of principle, but who were primarily concerned with revenue. Though the strength of Victorian representation gave a majority in the House of Representatives for some kind of protection, each of the other States had returned a majority of Free Traders, and these had also a majority in the Senate. The Labor Party, while divided on the merits of protection, were agreed in their objection to revenue duties which would in their view fall disproportionately on the working man. As introduced by Kingston on 18th October r1gor, the tariff resolutions were inevitably a compromise which, though they had some protectionist bias, fell short of the degree of protection to which manufacturers in Victoria had been accustomed. In the long and sometimes bitter debate that followed a number of items were further whittled down, and under attack by the Labor Party the proposed revenue duties on tea and kerosene were abandoned. The final result, while it satisfied no one, probably represented fairly enough the general feeling. In all these debates, Hughes was active on the Free Trade side—indeed, in the frequent absences of Reid he was often a kind of unofficial leader in guerrilla warfare against the serried ranks of the Government supporters. After the tariff proposals had been brought down, a motion of censure by Reid gave him an opportunity to carry the war into the enemy’s camp in a speech that is an excellent example of his skirmishing style. He twitted the Government with having simply copied the Victorian tariff at the behest of the Age. Before attempting to deal with the honorable member’s figures I desire to say that the Government in bringing down this Tariff seem to have regarded 130

SE ea SERS eS eeee EABee So : See ‘ - : : 2;RRO ORR er ge ges Ea = Bee EN Rae heRRS RRR eSeh aee ae

ESS ek ee ee*,oe FaSs : See ESeR Oreeee ee ee NE ee SS tees eee reee ; TT SERRE Ree EE Se ee aaed Re eS EES Se iRE Ss ea —— ee eeEE ee eS Se iee ee See see wg eRe .7sists. #; ekg oS itis: SEES Se ee ee eee Be.BSRES Si Feeeae Ree ee ee ee aSES eS EoRe ROR RES ROTORS TERRA SEEN pL SET ee tte " Ps —_ , Cr eo ss

SECS ENSSRE ES RONG LORIN ORY SORREOIES. ORNS RoR SOREN Res oa SER oo re my RR En TT SEER Ree SR Say tinea nse ttieee reesei senses BNE Se Res ee! PEeatsce2 eal aoRe|BBS eee +, ee Ec oe eee ee en Nerae eeRI iz SS aEyBe PS osoe eee oeoti ee ae eeeet eSNooDNR oo RRR SRR Nicoe minaeS eae TORRES Rec RS eee mR | OS SESE ~ERpseeeees Py PRO, SSR ISE RR RU UIE RRS See SE Eee Sah nner RNRRR, Sy are SERRE: EE Sees Sierra ee a aoBeer oa SRR Sac AMER RRB en a BRAS ReSRE ieee MS ee ee Re EES geet oo sie SteeaPEE OdeaNS3chORG SSRt RE RR

iaRTE icaUY aaeaees meee a eneeOe ee 5geOece sey Se eeMRED Pee 1,cS27:ERR eaOERIOT Co fe eas ER POORER BODEN AT CRUE ERROR RR SRR OE OEee RE, are Rees ROSE sc. SasPoe een SOMME SNe ARR AOC CRON ew oe nen aHe Reena OSES Recs GES eeON ee PS eeSaas. ee ee ‘ERS oS Es pe ee eee Ee Sree ees i SNR eee REISS Ree ee IORR |ee RE Th er oeSe ae: Sens Sige So . Fwe OU Bi aR SSSi.ERR gS esa EEN ROO ERS SENS ON ree MEER RNC RSE | Seer UR SOAR: Oe ee ee Sao CIRee RS ON oO aEe Steen eae eae eee SRR eS ic eeecot Fi SesOR me Pee SSRR ae SERn eeSRNiag, -.3“ES BARS ET eee Me Se ~Sugg Di, |foe peSEO cocina "RE" San Saree SE ancaa 4Sa SER AR SIRENS SINR RS SESRS See : + oe a 4 hy ae OER 2 CRORE pais are Be eae eS Bh RN mre ean! Sone euignees aia ee MORE cea! Ay Samar eee SF ia ge eo oe: Se eB * OE eth Ts SES PSR Se aie oe RS ec ORR. SRR aeee. SR .ES eecess a : By eS gee SaSRE oo° RE ereOS eR, Fe ENS oes eecserae Maes ae atoot Pa eBi eeee See Pore Seer eSegret eeeee SS CeOnn. ES SP Oe eeoS SS ae” SRE oc Re aSee -Psges See jeer aeoy ei, eec Bie SeMEES a,aMeee Fr aHE ee See P< 2S Se eee, aeeRRR aSS Os RS een re: ae =eesSI Peo e... cae ees ee fo EL Sears oo ee aeect aae” ae oR RSS Se ee es ce ee RS. REE SRS BS saeme Mee SoBe BX Saas ooo RRR coRee Rees, oe: ROE oS RR :SOO Bosrepent i aeeee Secs 60ISee eeeSSS REE Pe RE cE oe aes ey oa ™ a ge RR ce ee ee HP 2 EE EERE ee Re ° oe ye SG , poe Se | eee fo ee ll. ae ee ee ce eee coo. HER SRERRSE "ee gece LO . x RESS ies wa a | : See F . =e. TL SEP RR OTST SR Serene si age Repro Rann See RIS GEES eet nets . ss aw SABES ee : Bc coe wr | foal Tee AR Ree > Se Pec OU STIEL ST SRR “SET Soe ERR Rc ea ea ..V7. SEE GEE Ge i ae a oS ee : og Ss SS of gee St enc Gees SP oe, oe FE RS Se FEEL Bee SEE See aXe Sy - ¥e . a £°EY 7& otSO Re Be OS AE eeeeee eo SOE aeeS SOa= em Nes | BRD ee Ge kr oe > i ee eee ae : .can a .:.»EE: SUE ES ey FTAeeeS Ee OOLo DBR EES SpE URRY SN SERRE SERPs RegSe EE EE eS URES ae eS

a ae ‘..oaeee WM ee Pe eee Be ete ae a ee ee re OREO. *4. =. Oe : Seg) PERRET SSSee SEES Ea a Po Ae ae Pn ae Be cs Se Bee ee eer TE ay : Peceaaee a Eg ee. ee fe a : . = es Ne

Cb tee oi teed, | Be Sean. a gE. 3 RR oo EUS USERS Rd ae PE ote Rapa. CRETE: ao ecietieee eRe wee EE Sh eg 3 Loe B=. 4 . a Se SO aad or ieee SUNSET eel caer oes Dy = Res. 2S. SAREE. | ER Pot SRR PS aoe eee RoE Bd ere See pees PB ktees pgm . Do ee eee “at ncakette F co SEES BS Soae =- Se pe se2- oe Bere See + rT cas “one ea Steed “OO REUSE tereReece o Ee &. ESS eo * ra “Rae : “SRiaedincers: “A aaa eo EE .. ge 2 See “RRR See wo EAEUEESE oe . a : ie. ES Po TES ‘ ae RS » : SAPO LT Ux > SoS Ponc Rempigesees oT GE “eee ‘ed ERE oN / amare ‘wr 2 : Saas! : ae a oo oe Ps. ce Meee : 2 RNR . a 7 DERE UR so ¥i fF 2 : +. . ., . sp AERIS Pane ES Po SE OE eet? SEES AS Stes . : . ae NY : ‘ cs rosa ET Se ah, SEROUS Rt ES Beets ooee

Pe SARS FCSEEE SRR .+2we & >:“; Re 2aaSE 1 SRS | Ree S) SERS EeaeBRAS Bes my Je ie ‘ee WEE ABE Lae GOR OERES Bey PY BTR a: ES ae EE SRR SS oo Mog) AE Wty TERY Sos ox wet . neg ORC TR Eo, Bos he SEEESE oa ESE a. -°BSR :: :“:Saco adRen seeRRR see ioESR SS

Ege EES Gee nee : on os a$AFiez: ae eee ae.) ye SE. NESS) HERR. Uns oe.ET ee eS Ree aes(OES (0 UERRRE E fo EEE : BEERS. . SRE Sola ce :gt Pr aa71:-Poe, -ee Rg » :tfaPo OU vie gaia See ee2g 2 Be TSE -.=EP SO. ee. ae rs12 - EIS = 2CIES EBB Pn PR SRE :eo pieces eee oe ee :or RRR Besse tettSe Bees ee RS See nn oS Gees weep AE Bae Sek etm fo poe ca eS... eae EET oo SRR REC TT, Wee : . =e eee on SS Bisco ae 20 Besse Oe ag ae iia ed We eet oe ER OE Eas. 2 Bcc eon : exces: i Ss SOLS «SRS asc © MEH 8 RE See Gene: : See “Peet f ‘ eee . ae Se eas 6 hs, Coe Ss wo EES: eC eS. SR eae PORES Seo, SRE EER. o SCORE SS Snoosen o> ae Bo OE cae So eo, OES Brasco F., ba eaeOerbicc ogSeedy 7rsew ~SEE cae aTEL EES SRR. - .fee _: Reece ee iURE ee Se SERNS Sel. age: RET ee Soe oad gone otheam Se :~ ood 40 : gees So EES deSees aa 2 ee. eieESE 3SUED JESS: iesane aieewee OMT ~iggy vy BRS, a. ,eSea a:ee eee 22RR EERE Sah afe, te 23oe UF ee :ie Stein rk Noe SESS bE ae ee ae °* Se Cok ge ~-Se: ggSee pas SEES ae fSES ee:LE. er Pne aii oo po 20 ee gee ee woo RRS :~¥ca j 2) Ree Fe vs eR TOF 42* Bo 8PS REESE OR —: Ee

ps ae "gee va - - 3 eS ,a!fe Ee Serr os a ai ae I ee a ee ae SSE NRC RC i RD RN

1Be ARR = < Ed 3 ae er) eee ee Ed j : ‘ oe itis 2 a ee i See py BAe Bi 3Bee Pins wie :ie ea Sais 2of EES cS SE wa Ce. . SEES eg eat ie Bg ee me ” can a, fy 2. SRR geese SsSee eos: ae cr F . : Mae, : anna Po Ec Oe Ee se baIPteS ; A| ase .. SEBS foOSES ‘ “agg Seana .3 PEE, Se Ate. kd eae Si. wo e ye=ESO SS lathie ss ; . . a7 er seigh " veSLafea See Pytea ~. SRR ee eeee ee= pe EE my3 8Es : Eis Bai .ss2 ES ay oe 57cnsere OES ae Pp poe” eeER =otc, & Sana ie Bice ae So ee ge : Tse BE 2h .. -«alti = ON naasect a RSC Ba naiSee nag SEDieronusutneatesnnendtite oaccenanciet . fo A . ON oars soaa SOR ee aot. eee “ gil eeete aPOE renee pratima . SMR a aROG See ne Meeeeaees Peer Sseee NOMURA OTR Ree aSUS OS REORT LENOIS MRSS an eS webct rN A eMsentence Renae OARness ROR Rei

a «est HSS Ss aES RR aene RR OSTERS EES See Re eRhasnt RSE Bote: RR BEER Nee saves BREN eR Nn ROteae NONE NO EEE EEstearate NEE SECONC SE BER CERNE an asaya OS eesoR S See SRRR nN eR Piece SS Se Ce eee ie eet So Serena eeeeeeoeea tiiI aie eee Ce SCENE RR Gane en ot So ARBRE OAR SN =NDE aseaa sanogs SSR SC Sa rae eaeERR ONSS Sens SERED RE OSORIO RR SOS RE ESE ROR OO NC

pes Nir CR aarate aate:3egas oes oN — eeSRR . ena seeae ae ee SO ReEgechpestarees aemlagSh cee ee ee eee Rateeeeeeesresrce eee Se spore ae aeatee BUA ON on A ORE aR ae an Reeee NRRR Ca ae taeea eae eeRUE metre tans deed ane oe meee uae atuer SS Py RR eee eeRs osSige a SESeUN UE a Serene ERS eo See ea ER aeRRR in ON tenements aaaSee eteameinhe eeeenmity SES 2.Aan GREE Eee SESE SNS NRRea aR Sk SS wea ranma ser es etree as Nahe nape ekRade ten NSeevoEEC ea oecE caaaionTR aoe See sect ees sccigaisdeena ca a ceentengeia sania Ugo SS US SES See oe ASeteSR Bees ees oe eeREoe EE ees Eas ES ES ES ES eeuum Ss eSMeeeSoa ge SOTTEES SS Sepia) ae EEE OR Sine Ae an Se eae ea ea Si Seatac RO Pe See ee ona eRe aes Senn SECS SE eS ee OUR

T ‘ederal Parh )

cgo ayeParhamentary : Ay ry9y.es .Labor : . -\ ar Dre 1906-10 .5 The¥Federal Party,

Ee Pe... gt ee Sees pO ee ee Seen i a = ee, PH, ee foe ee eS ee re ee eee ee ead Sees ee . SERRE ae RE SsFeroR “ge, RRR SR RICE SS RRBIEN AE IRORNS ORS ICES BRE EEERS BOIL cESR, SETS ARRCI REDS RIO IIO RR IERIE BoaRE nt ae ot panion “SS EE Ee? ges aaa5Ras 8 Sra ESS CNRSSRI Rp BEA Oy ERD SES Se SR SRISI SNDOGO RS a RS SESO NRama RSIS BITES DRIaesecconsin a OO 3 TR.

Pe Bey ey * Ck phere ee EO Re as SR Se ee Sr ee

RR SoS sah 2 TE SsRSD cae eke ceSees ee re end Re meee akane aes meee eeOnes: a aSUepeesenn SEE EER Er SS eg RRR8S ROR SSISSooke a Ree ea NEN EE, fhe gttieties eeeSRE eae oeeee eenaSESS See SERRE AOBoaas RORY Sten SR ERS “NOR NSRRR Rea ces SRR SS eed eee aeBao. Ree eg re+. ee PS, SE Ree eR aa ee Ne NS a DON Sins Sites GRR

Beae & ada cn a SG EG ak TNHURNE i | ea eGwet ZN S Stow’ mal

SSmeee =) Bhs

7 ap

a3S, Q0 ee. eee BG, an: ET om Sel. — _ .

\Sre Sreeet) “The Mediator” |tee ee ———— By Halrst Eyre aS Lone Hand, May

ae en a oo

The Mediator: ‘I’ve had the time of my Ilfe.”’

tgte

FOUNDATIONS OF POLICY

hurry, and seeing a large and ever-increasing crowd of people making for the

railway station. They were thus displaying the characteristic of our race,

which combines with the valour that takes no thought of obstacles or difficulties that discretion which enables us to again come up smiling on some

more auspicious occasion. With the exception of that wild and improbable alarm there has been no menace to Australia during the last 20 years. During the last five years, however, there has centred round China the whole of the possibilities of a world conflict, and to-day that country is the seat of a European disturbance. There are massed in the China Seas 69 Russian war vessels, whilst the British Navy is represented by a local squadron of four line-of-battle-ships besides other vessels; and all the probabilities point clearly

to British interests being most vulnerable at that point. Australia, on the other hand, is perhaps the least vulnerable part of the Empire, and therefore when the squadrons are concentrated where they are most required we shall be left defenceless.14

After a debate that lasted nearly three weeks, the agreement was finally

adopted without alteration. It was to remain in force for ten years, after which it could at any time be denounced on two years’ notice being given. Tariff, immigration restriction, and defence policies provided the framework of Australia’s external relations. They were, in a sense, complementary, since the tariff and immigration restriction combined to protect Australian living standards, and the defence policy, in the last resort, provided the means of maintaining the others against the outside world. As yet, the defence policy seemed to Hughes quite inadequate to meet this challenge, and the tariff policy, so far as it was protective, benefited the manufacturers without extending any corresponding protection to the workers.

Of the Bills that did not become law during this Parliament, the one of most interest to Hughes was the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. This had already, before its introduction, led to Kingston’s resignation from the Cabinet because of the refusal of his colleagues to make the Bill apply to seamen on all shipping engaged in the coastal trade, whether Australianowned or not. The Bill, excluding seamen and also public servants, whose

inclusion Barton and Deakin believed would be unconstitutional, was introduced by Deakin, and was in general favourably received. Hughes, though he thought the exclusion of seamen and public servants “in the last degree disastrous and farcical”, welcomed the Bill as a union leader who had some experience of the New South Wales Arbitration Court and looked forward to the wider sphere offered by the Bull.

In my opinion [he said], society, in applying the operation of law to the settlement of industrial as well as civil disputes, is at length beginning to recognise its duties and responsibilities, and I regard the measure as the 14 C.P.D., XIV, 2313-21 (21st July 1903). 147 L

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

coping stone of civilization. ... The Bill is a recognition by the people that a

blow struck at any component part of the organism of society, is a blow struck at society itself and destroys social peace.

The Bill, too, like the New South Wales Act, would “enforce upon the men the very necessary lesson that unionism has responsibilities that cannot be evaded under any circumstances”. He suggested that the limitation expressed

in the Bill to “industrial disputes” should be broadened to include “the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes”, using the wording of the Constitution.””

So far, no speaker had openly opposed the principle of the Bill, though some had been critical of its details. Hughes was immediately followed, how-

ever, by Bruce Smith, who, dismissing Hughes as “evidently ... the funny man of his party”, proceeded to a root-and-branch attack on the whole idea of compulsory arbitration as a retrograde step for which a parallel could be found only in the Middle Ages, and calculated to produce the most deplorable effects by interfering with the natural laissez-faire relations between master and man. The Bill, however, was dropped when later in the debate McDonald carried an amendment against the Government to include employees of State railways, which Deakin refused to accept. The first Parliament was not without its lighter side, and this found expression in the search for a federal capital site. According to the Constitution, the capital had to be in New South Wales but at least a hundred miles from Sydney: till it was chosen, Parliament was to sit in Melbourne. At least forty potential sites offered themselves, and a Royal Commission appointed by the State had already reported on many of these. It was then decided to give members of Parliament a chance to see for themselves the most promising sites, and elaborate tours of inspection were arranged, first for senators and later for members of the House of Representatives. The latter tour took place in May 1902, and consisted at the outset of fifteen members (the personnel fluctuated somewhat), with their train of officials, attendants, and pressmen. Hughes, who at this time favoured Lynd-

hurst, in central western New South Wales, did not take part in the tour of the western and northern sites, but joined the party in Sydney for the inspection of the sites in south-eastern New South Wales, which were strongly favoured by most of the representatives of States other than New South Wales and Queensland, whether on their merits, or because of their proximity to the border, or, as many thought, because their inaccessibility would considerably delay the move from Melbourne. The itinerary was a strenuous one, comprising long coach journeys and

nights in primitive bush hotels, punctuated with civic receptions and 15 C.P.D., XV, 3376-87 (11th August 1903).

148

FOUNDATIONS OF POLICY

banquets of turkey, so that it was a notable occasion when at Goulburn they were served with roast beef. Throughout Hughes was conspicuous alike

for his physical stamina and his high spirits, running for great distances ahead of the coach on mountain roads and taking the lead in practical jokes at night.*®

He first attracted notice when the party, having been taken by train to Nowra and thence by coach to Jervis Bay, was being transferred outside the

harbour from the New South Wales government yacht to the Wakatipu,

which was to take them overnight to Eden. It was already dark and threatening to become rough, and the transfer involved being rowed over a mile or two of open sea. King O’Malley decided to remain on the luxuriously furnished yacht, remarking, “Well, I guess, brother, it is quite good enough for a democrat”—a decision which he was to regret before morning, when he appeared “looking worn and pale” and with no stomach for breakfast. Hughes, with the majority, preferred to risk the open-boat trip to the larger ship, and pushed off in the first boat. He sat facing stroke, and with wonderful energy persisted in gravely and awkwardly pushing the oar to help the rower when he was finishing the stroke. The sailor entreated and swore by turns, and had not Sir William Lyne warned Mr Hughes that if he did not leave things alone the party might spend the night on the open sea, that hon. member would have run the risk of being surreptitiously dropped overboard.1"

From Eden, where they were regaled with “tall stories about fish and whales” and legends of Ben Boyd, the party went by coach to Pambula, where they spent the night before an early start on the long and arduous drive up the mountains to Bombala. Arriving exhausted and half frozen, they were informed that arrangements had been made for them to follow the example of the senators and give a concert in aid of a local charity, with

a dance to follow the next evening. Since none of the party could either play or sing, the concert was something of a fiasco, “the one gleam of humor” being the encore given to Hughes after he had led off the proceedings with a recitation, greatly assisted by the audience, of “How Bill Adams won the Battle of Waterloo”. After this “a dead hollow flatness settled over the concert that was depressing as the silence of the mountains”, and even when, after Mr Mauger, the serious and teetotal member for Melbourne

Ports, had given a long recitation of the kind in vogue at temperance picnics, Hughes rose and gravely presented him with “an illuminated address and token of admiration from the Federal Parliament and the people 16 The following description of the tour is based primarily on the long and vivid reports sent to the Age, 14th-23rd May 1902, by “Our Special Correspondent” (George Cockerill), supplemented by the reminiscences of Hughes (Policies and Potentates, 53-69) and Cockerill, I51I-

° 17 Age, 14th May 1902. 149

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

of Bombala” in the form of a coach timetable and a straw bottle-cover that Hughes had picked up in the street, the joke fell flat.*® Next day was spent driving in a piercing wind around Bombala, and dancing till after midnight, with a six o’clock start for Dalgety next morning. At Dalgety “where the half-dozen houses seem to have been washed up and left on the bank during a flood”, they were again driven around the local beauty spots with the local magnate, one of the ubiquitous clan Campbell. Hughes, hoping to keep warm, had managed to borrow a horse and rode with the local police sergeant behind the “perambulating refrigerator” which contained his colleagues. After a time, while Campbell was expatiating on the view of Kosciusko, Hughes said to his companion “Is it always as cold

as this?” “He leant towards me and said in an undertone, ‘Fall back a piece; old Campbell will hear us” And when we were out of earshot, he said, ‘ve been here fifteen years, Mr Hughes, and I declare to God this is the warmest winter I’ve ever known’.”” After this, not even an uproarious evening in which, in the presence of an enthusiastic and uninhibited audience of locals, he adjudicated at a singing contest between the State member for the district and the representative of the Age, and succeeded in awarding the victory to the former “by a nose”, could reconcile him to Dalgety.*° A coach trip to Cooma restored the party to civilization and their special train. A quiet Sunday at Queanbeyan was followed by an inspection of the drought-stricken and dusty shores of Lake George. “You ought to see it in the spring time, gentlemen, resumed the sanguine resident .. . This country

is then a vernal park. An infernal park, rejoined the irrepressible Mr Hughes.” Soon after, when the immense and clumsy charabanc that had brought the party from Bungendore had broken down, Hughes and Tudor passed it at a run. ““What are all these fellows going so fast for?’ inquired Mr Groom. ‘Hurrying to get away from the site,’ shouted Mr Hughes, as his striding figure disappeared in a cloud of dust and gathering darkness.”** The rest of the trip was comparatively easy: a morning in Goulburn in dense fog; a visit to a site near Yass where “the red dust was so dense and incessant that the members protested that they did not want to eat the site but to see it”; attending the unveiling of a war memorial at Gundagai; and

so by another dusty drive to Tumut. But by this time Hughes had had enough and gone home, without waiting for the ball by which Tumut seems to have won the votes of his colleagues. The question of the Federal Capital was not to be settled yet for several years, and finally the choice fell on a site which only two or three members 18 Age, 16th May 1902. 19 Policies and Potentates, 69. “0 Policies and Potentates, 63-6; Cockerill, 152-3. “1 Age, 21st May 1902.

150

FOUNDATIONS OF POLICY

of this party had seen, during that quiet Sunday afternoon at Queanbeyan. Whether the expeditions contributed anything to the choice is doubtful, though perhaps they served to reduce the number of candidates. The trip did serve, however, to make Hughes known to some of the pressmen from

States other than New South Wales, to whom he had so far been little more than a name, and was perhaps the beginning of his friendship with Littleton Groom, so different in character and background yet so sympathetic with his broad social purposes, with whom he was to be associated in many ways during the next thirty years. Of the machinery Bills of the second session, by far the most important was the Judiciary Bill, introduced by Deakin, which set up the High Court of Australia to determine constitutional disputes and also to act as a general court of appeal from the State Supreme Courts. This debate gave Hughes,

then in the last stages of preparation for his final Bar examination, an Opportunity to give voice to some views on the effect of the proposed court which, in view of his later struggles to amend the Constitution to embrace his party’s economic policy, are not without interest. So good an authority as Higgins had already attacked the Bill as premature and extravagant, and

Hughes agreed. He went on to draw a comparison with the American Supreme Court, which had played so great a part in the constitutional development of the U.S.A. But the functions of a Court of this kind were

different altogether from those of the judiciary in Great Britain or the Australian States. The function of the Judiciary in Australia and in Great Britain is to declare what the law is. It interprets the law, and having declared it in the lower courts, power of appeal exists to the higher courts or to the highest court of

the Empire—in England to the House of Lords, and outside of Great Britain to the Privy Council. Even when the law has been declared by the highest of these tribunals we are by no means shut out from further redress, because we may appeal to Parliament and have the law altered. Where there is a written Constitution, which is not susceptible of amendment in the same way as the ordinary laws under which the citizens live, then the Judiciary is a supreme power. You cannot get behind the Judiciary. .. . You may appeal to Parliament, and you may, if you have plenty of time and energy and hope, appeal to the people, but the Judiciary is the beginning and end of all things, and behind that you cannot go. You may, if you like, submit everything to the arbitrament of arms, and then you may, perhaps, secure an amendment.

This was the kind of all-powerful judiciary that the Attorney-General sought

to establish in Australia, not merely to declare the law, which the State courts or the State judges would be competent to do, but with wide powers to interpret the Constitution and to adapt it to the changing needs of the people. Such a court was outside the traditions of parliamentary supremacy, 151

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

and it would tend to make direct amendment of the Constitution impossible by “interpreting” its way round the difficulties which would normally lead to amendment. The people say, “You must either make your way through this stone wall, under the Constitution, or we shall knock the wall down”, and the AttorneyGeneral prefers the Judiciary and its ingenious methods of going round or over or under stone walls instead of that straightforward way of knocking walls down and have done with it, by which we have achieved every liberty We possess.

In America, the judiciary had read into the Constitution provisions that its framers could never have contemplated. Being human, the judges had been responsive to public opinion as expressed in newspapers, public meetings and so on, whereas “we have always distinctly set our faces against any recognition of public opinion which did not find its expression in one of two ways, either through a plebiscite or through Parliamentary representation”.

When some effect of the Constitution threatens to become intolerable, the federal judiciary “will introduce some sort of patchwork amendment by a convenient interpretation of the Constitution, and so, by relieving the pressure here or there, prevent the people from ever securing any beneficial reform of the Constitution”. “With the erection of this Judiciary all hope of

securing an amendment of the Constitution disappears.’ The Court as proposed would “violate the very first principles of law, in that they purpose interpreting the Constitution, not as it is expressed in the bond, but according to the intentions of its framers—a proceeding which no court would tolerate”. Moreover, it would “usurp the functions hitherto exercised by the Parliament—that is, by the people”. In any case, such extravagance while the country was “struggling in the octopus-like grip of depression” would “bring the Federal Government into disrepute, and the whole machinery of the Constitution into contempt”.”* In the upshot, the argument for economy was heeded to the extent of reducing the number of judges from five to three, reducing their salaries and dropping their pensions. The validity of Hughes’s arguments may be disputed, and they perhaps smack somewhat of the law student’s dogmatism (he was to be admitted to the New South Wales Bar five months later). That the High Court did in its own field “usurp the powers of Parliament” is true, and, as Hughes had himself pointed out, was probably an inevitable

result of the Federal compact. That it acted as a safety-valve to public opinion, or that its judges interpreted the Constitution in the light of its intentions rather than its terms, would have certainly been denied by the early justices, and the unconscious tendencies in this direction that may have 22 C.P.D., XII], 697-704 (10th June 1903). 152

FOUNDATIONS OF POLICY

existed were limited by appeal to the Privy Council, which was certainly responsive neither to colonial public opinion nor to heterodox canons of interpretation. In fact, the tendency of the High Court has been to act as a brake rather than a safety-valve, and it has been criticized more often for rigid adherence to the letter of the bond than for adventurous interpretation of its spirit. The creation of the High Court set the coping-stone on the federal structure, and in retrospect we can see that the passing of Barton to take his seat on its Bench marks the end of a political era. Barton, with his stately presence, classical profile, and dignified and sincere, if somewhat orotund, eloquence, had come to symbolize the heroic age of the federal movement in a way that Deakin never did. Barton seemed to stand above the battle. “Affable Alfred”, for all his high ideals, wide culture, and charming personality was, outside Victoria, regarded as a politician among other politicians. In the second Parliament there would be new issues and new alignments as, with the outlines firmly laid down, members increasingly came to grips with the day-by-day problems of government.

153

CHAPTER X

Three Elevens N 19TH NoveMBER 1903, between the prorogation and the dissolution

() of the first Parliament, Hughes, having passed his final law examinations with flying colours, was admitted to the New South

Wales Bar. He had begun to study law, along with Holman and David Hall, later Attorney-General of New South Wales, in 1900, when the battle for Federation was over but Federal politics had not yet begun, and when his work in organizing the Wharf Labourers’ Union and the Trolley, Draymen and Carters’ Union was at its height. He had been helped and encouraged in his studies by several lawyers with whom his career in State politics had brought him into touch. T. R. Bavin lent him his notebooks, J. B. Peden

gave him some coaching, and the example of George Reid was always before him. His capacity for debate had been proved in the House, and what others could do so could he. Whether he looked on the law as an adjunct to his union business, or as a backstop should politics fail, or as a supplement to a parliamentary salary quite inadequate to the needs of his growing family, we do not know. Success in his studies, carried on through the life of the first Parliament in Melbourne, certainly called for intense hard work, and contemporaries have left us vignettes of him in the Sydney-Melbourne train with “a bag of law books and a case containing a phonograph, with which he improved his hearing by carefully listening while it tinkled out

the speeches of W. E. Gladstone”, or pacing up and down the gardens at Parliament House, “a small, attenuated figure, with bowed head, and a book held behind him”.* Even his deafness was turned to advantage, for it enabled him to keep up a quorum for his party through dull patches of debate while concentrating his mind on his law books. Now the years of intensive study were rewarded, and, introduced by Reid, he was called to the Bar of New South Wales. As it turned out, politics were to absorb him, and, though he maintained chambers in Sydney for some years, he does not seem to have practised except for his own or related unions in the Arbitration Court or in compensation claims and similar industrial matters for their members. The election of December 1903 was unexciting. The party position was still obscure: the tariff question was, by common consent, buried, and, in a 1 Age, 25th April 1904.

154

THREE ELEVENS

Parliament given largely to creating machinery, no fresh issue of clear-cut difference had emerged. Deakin stood on the achievements of Barton’s Government; Reid taunted Deakin with his dependence on Labor. For the Labor Party, the main issue was the inclusion of State industrial employees in the Federal arbitration system. An element of uncertainty was introduced

by the fact that in New South Wales, and in all the other States except South Australia, women were to vote for the first time. Hughes’s campaign was a quiet one. His position in the electorate was unassailable. “There is no reason on earth,” said the Worker, “nor yet on the waters which surround the earth, for the workers throwing over Hughes. His political raiment is without spot or blemish, and has not even a darn on its hem.” His opponent, a Dr W. E. Warren, was unknown locally and without political experience. In three briefly reported speeches, Hughes expressed disgust at the delays over the federal capital, saying that “New South Wales in a moment of delirium had agreed to federation, but now the people were sane again they were very sorry”, and attacked the protectionist tariff and the idea of preferential trade.”

At the poll on 16th December, Hughes was returned with a slightly reduced majority, in spite of a greater total vote.* Of an electorate now enlarged from 14,661 to 25,787, only 41 per cent had voted. Hughes’s reduced

majority and the much reduced percentage of the poll were due partly to the general apathy (in New South Wales as a whole the vote was 53 per cent), partly perhaps to the women’s franchise. The women of West Sydney, we may guess, were neither as interested in politics, nor as keen on Hughes, as their menfolk. With women’s franchise, the old rough-and-tumble pubbalcony style of campaign was going out, and new techniques were called

for to win the new votes. When the count was complete, the election was seen to have been a triumph for Labor. The party had won eight additional seats in the House of Representatives, shortly raised to nine by the adhesion of Poynton, a South Australian Protectionist. Both the other parties had lost seats, leaving

the numbers in the Representatives 25 Protectionists, 25 Labor, and 24 Free Traders, with one independent who, though a protectionist, was opposed to Deakin and to Labor. Deakin’s famous phrase about the impossibility of playing cricket with three elevens was very apt. In the Senate, Labor’s gains *s5th December 1903 (leading article). 3.5.M.H., 28th November, 2nd and goth December 1903. No speeches are reported in the Daily Telegraph, and Hughes is mentioned only once, as the target of “‘Falstaffian tactics” by the Protectionists (D.T., 11th December 1903). In accordance with party policy, Hughes had not on this occasion sought the additional endorsement of the Free Trade organization. I can find no evidence for Browne’s statement (p. 57) that “Not only N.S.W., but other States

resounded to his oratory. He spent very little time in his own electorate. He was an extremely tired man by election day.” 4 Hughes, 7,274; Warren, 3,129; Informal, 406. 155

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

were even more striking. Winning ten of the vacant seats, they became, with fourteen members, the largest single party in that House.® It was remarked that the standard of the new House was not equal to that of the first Parliament.® In the House of Representatives, Sir William McMillan, as well as Sir Edmund Barton, had retired; he was succeeded as deputy leader of the Free Trade Party by Cook. Sir Edward Braddon died before he could take his seat in the new Parliament, and Kingston, though he sat in two more Parliaments, was mortally ill. Of the seventeen newcomers, eleven had entered politics only since Federation. Two, Webster and Elliott Johnson, were to attain office in Cabinet and as Speaker respec-

tively, but none reached the first rank in Federal politics, though one, Arthur Robinson, was to play a prominent part in Victorian State politics. A high proportion, in fact, lasted only one term. The result of the election came as a surprise to everyone, and not least to the Labor Party. Nothing suggests that they had expected any change in their role as a minority holding the balance between the two major parties. The resolution of the 1902 Federal Conference prohibiting any member from accepting office without Caucus approval was designed to prevent attempts to split the party such as Reid had successfully employed with Cook in pre-solidarity days, and were soon to separate Kidston from it in Queensland. The election campaign had been essentially negative—a mild criticism

of the Government rather than a bid for power. It was obvious that the old party system had broken down, but far from obvious what new grouping would take its place. The fiscal division had lost its reality. In the new century, the real issues of policy were increasingly social, and on these the Labor Party spoke with one voice, while both the others were divided. If Reid was becoming the spokesman of the wealthy pastoralists and merchants, his radical background was not yet for-

gotten, and others of his followers, such as Cook, Wilks, and the Henry Georgeite Johnson, were well to the left. On the other side, while the strongest section of the Protectionists, including their leader, had much sympathy with the aims, if not the methods, of Labor, others, such as Forrest,

were essentially conservative. Much of the energy of the new Parliament was to be devoted to attempts to work out some combination that would make stable government possible, and in these Deakin, with his subtle mind and his keen feeling for the traditions of responsible government, played a leading part.’ For a beginning, Deakin continued in office. His policy had more to 5 Sawer, 35-6. The figures take into account two by-elections where the candidate originally successful had been unseated on appeal. Deakin’s phrase occurred in a speech at an Australian Natives’ Association dinner in Melbourne on 1st February 1904. 6 Cf. Bulletin, 14th January 1904, 9; Turner, 70.

TFor a fuller account of the moves in the non-Labor parties, see the account in Nation Building.

156

THREE ELEVENS

attract Labor than Reid’s, and there were personal as well as political links between the two groups. There was a strong affinity between Deakin and

Watson, while between Lyne and Hughes mutual political services had engendered a kind of respect.* Kingston and Higgins, too, both stood very

close to the Labor Party, and were respected and liked by its members. But already, towards the end of the last Parliament, the tone of Labor had been more critical, and several measures had been set aside after amendments had been carried against the Government. Deakin’s Ministry was now to prove short-lived.

One of the Bills that had been shelved after Labor amendment was the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. This had, even in the Cabinet stage, caused the resignation of Kingston from Barton’s Ministry, and in 1903 the Labor Party had combined with some of the more progressive Protectionists to carry an amendment to include State railway employees, which both Barton and Deakin held to be contrary certainly to the spirit, and probably to the letter, of the Constitution. When the House met on 2nd March, Deakin reintroduced the original Bill. Since both Deakin and Watson had put the question of the railway employees in the forefront of their election campaigns, this was a direct challenge to Labor, none the less pointed because in the interval a bitterly fought railway strike in Victoria had been sternly suppressed by an anti-

Labor Government. Watson accordingly gave notice of an amendment similar to that previously carried, but before this was reached a more drastic amendment, to include all State employees, was put by Fisher and carried

on 21st April with the somewhat unexpected support of a number of members of the Opposition who were certainly not well disposed to the Bill as a whole. Of the thirteen Free Traders who voted for the amendment, at least six did so with the avowed purpose of forcing the withdrawal of the Bill. Two of Deakin’s party also voted for the amendment, and two others,

Kingston and Higgins, paired against the Government, the latter having privately advised the Labor Party that the inclusion of State employees would be, in his opinion, constitutional. Ten Opposition members, including Reid, voted with the Government.’ Deakin resigned, and “on constitutional grounds, and on the score of common sense”’? advised the Governor-General to send for Watson. To say we were astonished at finding ourselves in office [wrote Hughes later],

describes our feelings very mildly. Nothing had been farther from our thoughts. We had moved the motion which had resulted in the downfall of 8 Cf. Pearce, 49, 55.

9 The analysis is that of the Governor-General, Lord Northcote, in his dispatch to the scoretary of State for the Colonies of 23rd April (photostat in Commonwealth Archives, C.P. 10 Argus, 26th April 1904. 157

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

the Deakin Government, in a spirit of careless and uncalculating indifference as to what might follow. It was true that the Government deserved defeat, but we had hardly expected that our attack would bring it down. Our own

numbers were grossly inadequate, and although we had known that we could count on the support of several members outside our own party, it was not until the last moment that the fate of the Government was decided."

It had been believed in some quarters that Reid, as Leader of the Opposition, was “heir-at-law” to the Prime Ministership, and that he would be sent for on Deakin’s resignation, especially as the fatal amendment had

been moved by Fisher, a private member, and not by Watson, and this belief was thought to have influenced some of the more surprising votes.” Others believed that Labor had been cunningly led into an ambush by the “slim tactics” of Reid, and would be promptly destroyed by the combined opposition of the two other parties.’’ More generally the Press took the view that Deakin had rightly called Labor’s bluff, and that, as The Times put it: It is best for everybody that the party which has so long dominated Australian politics without responsibility . . . should now openly bear the burden of government. They will probably learn a great deal by the experiment, and so, we are sure, will the people of Australia. If the latter find it a costly and a disagreeable experience, they must remember that it is to their indifference and carelessness at the last election that the Labour party owe their triumph. They have the remedy in their own hands.!4

Or, as the Argus explained: They [the Free Traders who had supported the amendment] regard the temporary affirmation of a wrong principle as of less importance than putting an end to a system of government which is unconstitutional and degrading.

This attitude . . . leads the Labour party to no false confidence as to the subsequent attitude of those members.!®

| Certainly the auspices were not unduly favourable when Watson learnt confidentially, at lunch at Government House on Friday 22nd, that Deakin had advised that he should be sent for, and was invited to attend at noon next day to receive his formal commission. There had not yet been anywhere an example of effective government by a Labor administration, and many people, not entirely unsympathetic, believed that it was impossible for the party, with none of the background and tradition of leadership claimed by the other parties, to conduct a government. “It is hard looking back,” wrote Nettie Palmer, “to understand what 11 Nation Building, 239. 12 Argus, 21st April 1904.

13 Age, 22nd April 1904 (leading article). 14 The Times, 22nd April 1904. 15 Argus, 21st April 1904 (leading article). 158

THREE ELEVENS

a strange and revolutionary development this seemed.”*® What could Watson, a working printer who had once been a stable-boy at Government House, know of the mysteries of government and finance? Or Hughes, the disreputable little umbrellasmender? Surely a few days in office would be sufficient to demonstrate their incompetence, even to themselves! When Caucus met on Saturday afternoon, it had first to settle whether the party should nail its colours to the mast and attempt to implement the policy formulated by the 1902 Conference at once, or whether it should attempt to form a Government sufficiently broadly based to attract support from all the more liberal elements in Parliament and the country, and so have some chance of stability. There was considerable difference of opinion, and discussion raged long, on this and on the related question of whether Caucus or the Prime Minister should decide who were to be invited to fll portfolios. Neither those who wished to approach Deakin for a coalition nor those who wished to confine office exclusively to members of the party were able to gain a majority, and in the end it was decided to allow Watson a free hand to choose his team, on the understanding that it was to be predominantly, but not necessarily exclusively, a Labor one. Kingston and Higgins were mentioned as possible reinforcements. It was said that when Higgins was mentioned Hughes’s name was brought forward by the exclusive faction as perfectly competent to be Attorney-General, but that Hughes,

who had only a few months earlier been admitted to the Bar, “signified that he would rather not fill such an onerous post”, thus making at least one outside appointment necessary, since no other party member was legally qualified.*’ Watson, having been left with the responsibility for choosing his Cabinet, called into consultation Hughes and E. L. Batchelor, of South Australia, and the three spent the evening in his room at Parliament House. With Hughes his association, as we have seen, had been long and close, going back to the days of the Solidarity movement. Batchelor, a quiet native-born South Australian, who had started, like Hughes, as a pupil-teacher and had become a

working engineer, had held important office in both the industrial and political movements in his own State, where he had been a member of Parliament for seven years and leader of the Parliamentary Party. He was not only congenial by temperament to Watson, but was the only man available with Cabinet experience, having held office under Holder as Minister for Education and Agriculture for over a year before Federation. The first move, inquiries having eliminated Kingston on account of his illness, was to enlist Higgins, and this was done, with the full approval of Deakin, who was consulted by Watson."® According to the Age, “consul16N, Palmer, Henry Bournes Higgins: a Memoir (London, 1931), 172. 17 Argus, 25th April 1904; Crisp, 156. 18 Palmer, 173.

159

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

tations took place at Mr Higgins’ residence at Malvern”,’? and it was presumably thither that the three Cabinet-makers “disappeared” on Sunday, probably in order to gain the privacy not afforded by the East Melbourne

boarding-house where Watson lived with a dozen other members of the party. Thus by Monday morning four places were filled. After an early session with his two colleagues on Monday, Watson spent most of the day

at the Eight Hours Day celebrations, where he made a short and noncommittal speech, and listened to a stirring exhortation by Tom Mann, the English socialist, to “Be Courageous”. Hughes was not recorded as present,

and was no doubt active elsewhere. At five o’clock the conference was resumed at Parliament House, and soon the watching pressmen noted that Fisher and Senator McGregor were successively called in. A final session on Tuesday morning, after long discussion, completed the list by summoning

Hugh Mahon, the member for Coolgardie. The eighth member, Senator Dawson, is not mentioned in any report, and was perhaps not in Melbourne, but his membership of the Government seems to have been assumed.” On

Wednesday, 27th April, the new Ministry was announced to the House, which then adjourned for three weeks to enable it to formulate its policy. “Probably a Cabinet was never formed with less display of mystery and diplomatic negotiation,” reported the Argus.** Inevitably there were some malcontents and some criticism of the Prime Minister for alleged favouritism. Unfortunately, no record of the reasoning behind the selection exists. Where

none had previously held office, the claims of all had at least to be considered. In fact, once the first four were chosen, Watson seems to have been ultra-cautious, guided by past claims rather than anything else. McGregor

had been from the first leader in the Senate and deputy leader of the Caucus. A Scot of great charm and prodigious memory, his nearly total blindness disqualifed him from an administrative portfolio, but he was admirably suited to the difficult task of representing the Government in the Senate. Senator Dawson, who turned out the weakest member of the team, had been briefly Premier of Queensland, and his position had been recognized when he took the chair at the meetings preliminary to the creation of the Caucus. Fisher was the ablest member of the important Queensland group, and had been put forward as a candidate for leadership in 1901,” and he had moved the amendment that had brought the previous Government down. What is surprising is not his inclusion, but rather that he was not one of the “inner council”—this perhaps reflects Watson’s preference. The only real difficulty seems to have been the last place. With two each 19 Age, 25th April 1904.

20 The movements of those concerned were closely watched by the Press. The fullest reports are in the Argus of 25th, 26th and 27th April 1904; the Age, Daily Telegraph (Sydney) and Sydney Morning Herald have also been consulted. “1 Argus, 26th April 1904. 22 Pearce, 59.

160

THREE ELEVENS

from New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia, and Higgins from Victoria, where the party was in any case weak, Tasmania and Western

Australia were still unrepresented. There is some evidence that King O’Malley pressed his claims. However, the Age reporter met “that political eccentric” at Parliament House while the choice was being made, walking through the corridors “with deeply serious mien”. “I have told Watson,” he gravely said, “not to consider me at all. I have given him a perfectly free hand so far as I am concerned, for I do not wish to embarrass him.””* But Western Australia was, from the Labor point of view, more important than

Tasmania, even if we can imagine King O’Malley being acceptable to Watson or Hughes. Since Pearce would have made three senators, the choice lay between J. M. Fowler, member for Perth, and Mahon, and there seems to have been little between them. Mahon, however, had had a more varied

career (he had been private secretary to Parnell, and had shared imprisonment with him), and the goldfields were a more important and distinctive interest than the Fremantle docks. Possibly it was thought expedient to give a place to the Irish interest in a Cabinet, four of whose eight members were of Scottish birth or parentage—Higgins, though Irish, was not Catholic. In any case, Mahon was to prove an adequate, if not exciting, administrator and to hold office in other Governments with Hughes before achieving fame as the only member of the Federal Parliament ever to be expelled for disloyalty. But that story comes later. It was to be remarked that the Government contained an equal number of free-traders and protectionists, but this, since there was no prospect of the fiscal issue arising, was no doubt fortuitous, as was the predominance of Scots. More striking was the non-representation, except perhaps in the person

of Dawson, of the bush worker. McGregor had been a builder’s labourer; the rest, apart from Higgins and Hughes, were tradesmen. Spence, whose prestige and experience as an organizer was perhaps greater than that of any of them, never seems to have been quite at home in politics, nor were his relations with Watson or Hughes ever close. This is reflected in a somewhat uneasy relation between the Australian Workers’ Union and its paper, the Worker, and successive Labor Governments. Like the party from which it was drawn, the Government was, as Govern-

ments go, one of marked youth. Most of its members were around forty; Watson was 37. Only two, Higgins and McGregor, were over 50, and the average age of the eight was 47.65, compared with 56 for their predecessors. It leant, if anything, to the side of conservatism, and its composition reflected

Watson’s firm belief, which Hughes shared, in the parliamentary process, and his desire to set at rest any fears the electorate might have about the capacity of Labor to govern according to the rules. 23 D.T., 26th April 1904; Age, 25th April 1904. 161

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

In the allocation of portfolios Watson himself took the post of Treasurer —a further pledge of moderation, for Watson had the knack of getting on with business men and winning their confidence. Hughes came second in

seniority, with the portfolio of External Affairs, which was normally the Prime Minister’s ofiice. Higgins was, of course, Attorney-General; Batchelor took Home Affairs and Fisher Customs, where his manifest integrity would

help to reassure a jittery mercantile community, many of whom were not yet reconciled to a Federal tariff, or to the high-handed methods of Kingston and Lyne. Defence and the Post Office, two of the transferred departments which involved a good deal of routine administration but little or no policy, were allotted to Dawson and Mahon respectively, while McGregor was VicePresident of the Executive Council and leader in the Senate.

The announcement of the Cabinet was naturally greeted with some doubts by the more conservative sections of the Press. The Daily Telegraph, disappointed in its hope of seeing a Free Trade Government, commented:

“They have everything to learn and nobody in the Cabinet able to teach them. It is wholly and solely an apprentice government... . It remains, however, to be seen how the curious political freak will be looked upon by the House, which need not submit to be made ridiculous one moment longer than it has a mind to”.** There were others, however, for whom the Bulletin spoke in its cartoon of 5th May, showing The Commonwealth answering Watson’s, “But we’ve no experience”, with, “Just the man we want—we’re about tired of men with ‘experience’.” From the first reaction, with Reid’s feline congratulations and, more significant, Sir John Forrest’s bludgeoning outburst against his own party and Government, their tenure was obviously precarious. Though Deakin promised “the utmost fair play”, and did for the present prevent Reid from dismissing Labor at once, his party would hear no overtures for a coalition, and many of them were inclined to follow Forrest’s lead. From this time, in fact, the Protectionist party was fatally split between its radical and its conservative wings. Though Higgins had joined the Cabinet with Deakin’s blessing, this did not provide the stability hoped for. Though he added to the intellectual calibre of the Cabinet, Higgins in fact brought little or no accession of political strength. Always an individualist, whose stand on the Boer War and on Ireland gave him a character for extremism hardly less

than that of his colleagues, he had no aptitude for the give-and-take of politics. “In politics, though his intellectual ability is acknowledged, he carries little weight,” reported one observer. Another summing up a few years later wrote of his “great faculty for being in the minority, and great capacity for making a good fight for it”.*° In these circumstances, the Watson 241.T., 27th April 1904 (leading article). 25D.T., 25th April 1904; Turner, 87. 162

THREE ELEVENS

Government attempted no innovation, either in administration or in the House.

Yet the spirit of exhilaration and high adventure in which Hughes at least entered ofhce was not wholly misplaced. It was, to adopt Deakin’s metaphor, a stone-walling innings, devoid of thrills for the spectator, if not for the batsmen, but it showed that the novice front bench could hold its wicket against the worst the veteran bowlers of both the other teams could do, while the affairs of the country were quietly carried on without either red revolution or breath of scandal. As Hughes recalled many years later: “The days passed and the business of Parliament and of the country went smoothly on, every day finding us more adept in handling the affairs of State, more nonchalant in our replies to questions designed to disturb our peace of mind.’”*® The importance, in the long run, of Watson’s Government lay not in anything it did, but in the fact that it accustomed people’s minds to the conception of a Labor Government, and in so doing, incidentally, signed the death-warrant of radical liberalism. The Department of External Affairs of those days had little in common with the modern department of that name, since diplomatic representation and foreign policy alike were still entirely in the hands of Great Britain. It was responsible for communication, through the Governor-General, with the Colonial Office, and for a variety of routine functions more appropriate to a Prime Minister’s Department, which, in fact, it normally was for the first decade of the Commonwealth.*‘ The most important function of the Department was the supervision of the policy of migration restriction, details of which were carried out by the Collectors of Customs in the various ports. Here Hughes was on familiar

ground, with a clear line of party policy. The Labor Party had always suspected that the restrictions, both on coloured migrants and on European workers under contract, were being administered laxly, and that exemptions were too readily granted. Hughes was therefore ready to take a strong line, and to examine all applications himself. He soon found, however, that the problems were not always simple.

At the outset, Hughes scored a minor triumph. Ten Chinese tried to land at Darwin with re-entry permits issued before Federation by South Australia. Following a ruling by Deakin, Hughes refused to recognize the permits. The South Australian Premier arranged with his police to land the men by force, hoping to test the issue in the High Court. Hughes had them arrested and charged before a magistrate as illegal immigrants. At this point,

it was discovered that the permits were forgeries, and the test case was hastily abandoned.” -6 Nation Building, 245. 27 Cf. Commonwealth Year Book, Il, 970; Year Book of Australia, 1906, 361.

“8 The Times (London), 2nd, roth May 1904; 4ge, qth, rith, rath, 16th May 1904. 162 M

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

More difficult, involving as it did conflicting interests both in Queensland

and in Western Australia, was the question of exemption permits for Japanese divers and for Papuan sailors serving in pearling crews out of Thursday Island. It was generally agreed that the divers were necessary to the industry, and it was argued that it was in practice impossible and would be inequitable to ban Papuans from boats working off their own coast while allowing Thursday Islanders and aborigines. However, there were complaints that Japanese signed on as divers were really working as carpenters and sailmakers, and that the Papuans were being demoralized by the un-

limited liquor and other temptations of Thursday Island. After much consideration, Hughes refused to lay down a general rule, but decided that all future applications must come before him personally to be decided on

their merits, and that permits would be subject to certain restrictions designed to meet the objections that had been raised.*® This was a common-sense administrative decision. Another relaxation of

the letter of the “White Australia” policy in which Hughes played a part illustrates the continuity of policy in spite of frequently changing Ministries. Great Britain, concerned about her position in the Far East, was sensitive to the reactions of Indians and Japanese to Australia’s policy of exclusion, and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 gave fresh force to Japanese protests.

Before he fell, Deakin had given instructions for measures to exempt Japanese and Indian merchants and travellers from the operation of the Immigration Restriction Act. These measures were approved by Hughes and forwarded by him to the Japanese Consul-General. They were put into effect by Reid after Labor had lost office.*” As the debate on the Immigration Restriction Bill had clearly shown, the Labor Party was almost as much concerned over the threat to wages offered by the entry of European workmen under contracts made in ignorance of Australian conditions as over coloured immigration, and it was in response to a comment by Hughes himself on the Address in the first Parliament that Barton had included a clause in the Immigration Restriction Bill to exclude such migrants. It was not, however, easy in many cases to establish whether a contract existed or not. While Hughes was Minister, there was a considerable agitation on the Western Australian goldfields over an alleged influx of Italians suspected of being under contract. Protest meetings were held at Kalgoorlie and Coolgardie and questions were asked in the House. Hughes took prompt action.

A special officer was stationed at Fremantle to board all ships bringing 29 C.P.D. XIX, 2250, 2312, 2371; XX, 2882, 3035, 3153, 3246, 3451, 3529. 30 Immigration Restriction Act 1901: Correspondence respecting proposal to modify the administration of the Act in regard to visits of Asiatic merchants, travellers, etc. (Dated 16th April 1904, to 1st August, 1905), P.P. no. 61/1905. 164

THREE ELEVENS

Italian migrants and question them individually. If he was still not satisfied that they were not under contract, the Italian consul at Fremantle undertook to look after them while instructions were sought from Melbourne. Meanwhile, the State Premier promised to institute a general inquiry into Italians on the goldfields.**

Somewhat later, a reported proposal to recruit Italians to replace the Kanakas who were being repatriated from the Queensland canefields drew from Hughes a considered statement of his views on Italian migration. Whether these men be Italians, or whomsoever they may be, provided they are Europeans, if they come here with some little capital, or as able-bodied citizens, with some special skill, and particularly if they are agriculturists, I see no reason why the various States of Australia should not welcome them.

But there were “Italians and Italians”, and from experience in New South Wales he did not consider that most of those who came here were desirable immigrants. Some, who had settled on the land in fruit-growing districts, were admirable settlers, but most “seemed to drift into one or two occupa-

tions, which demand no special aptitude or skill, in which they displace northern Europeans”. There was “hardly one fruit shop in Sydney where the Italian does not reign supreme”. Northern European races were more easily assimilated and so were to be preferred, “while we should certainly not make any unjust discrimination between races”. “Germans, Scandinavians, and

Danes assimilate with us readily, but Italians do not.” He distinguished “the true Italian peasant, the agriculturist, the fruit-grower, the viticulturist, and the men who go in for silk growing” from “the class of Italians that we apparently are getting in this country ... persons who are engaged in organ-grinding, and as itinerant vendors of ice-cream, and so on”. The real crux of the migration problem was better land legislation. “Settlement upon the land is the basis of everything, though it is not the end of everything.” “In view of the failure of the Governments of the States to give sufficient opportunities to their own citizens to settle upon the land”, there did not seem to be any immediate need for migration of the type proposed.” Very different was the case of five Norwegian seamen from the Inger, a small steamer chartered to carry phosphates from Ocean Island to Melbourne, who, having been persuaded by officials of the Seamen’s Union to strike for the Australian rate of wages usually paid on this run, had been left stranded and destitute in Sydney. An attempt was made to have them deported as illegal immigrants, but Hughes refused on the ground that they were not the type of men likely to become a charge on the country.** Hughes’s brief tenure of the External Affairs portfolio also directed his 31 C.P.D., XIX, 1256, 1525, 1557-8, 1651-3; Age, 2nd, 11th, 12th May 1904. 32. C.P.D., XX, 2610-2 (23rd June 1904). 33 Age, 3rd May 1904; C.P.D., XIX, 2312-4 (15th June 1904). 165

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

attention for the first time to Australia’s wider Pacific interests, in New Guinea and the New Hebrides. British New Guinea had not yet been taken over by the Commonwealth, but was administered for the Colonial Office by the Governor-General with the advice of his Minister for External Affairs. Soon after Hughes assumed office news reached Australia of an affray at Goaribari Island in which a

number of natives were killed. It was suggested that the Acting Administrator, Judge Robinson, had provoked the disturbance by arresting men who had come on board his vessel in good faith, and had then lost his nerve. Hughes was particularly concerned at the implications of the affair for the future relations between the races, and advised the appointment of a Royal Commission under Judge C. E. R. Murray, of the New South Wales District Court.2* Murray had not completed his report when Hughes left office, but meanwhile Robinson had committed suicide, and Hughes had

selected to succeed him as Chief Judicial Officer, from a number of applicants, J. H. P. Murray (no relation to the Royal Commissioner), a brilliant, but not so far particularly successful, Sydney barrister, who was strongly recommended by Barton and O’Connor. Murray, the son of Sir Terence Aubrey Murray, a former President of the Legislative Council

of New South Wales, was an Oxford graduate of equal academic and athletic distinction with something of a reputation as a rebel. This appointment was the beginning of a long and extremely distinguished career in New Guinea, which was to bring him across Hughes’s path again nearly twenty years later.°° Attention was directed to the New Hebrides by the Entente Cordiale of

8th April by which Great Britain and France agreed to settle their outstanding colonial differences. Among these, though far down in importance,

was the question of the New Hebrides, where French and Australian interests, the latter partly missionary and partly commercial, had long been in conflict and where, in the absence of any formal sovereignty, there was no authority to settle claims between members of the two nationalities, or between either and the natives. The Extente offered no permanent solution— the Condominium was not established till 1906—but proposed as a first step

a Joint Commission to settle land claims. The Australian Government, while regretting that it was not informed of the details of the agreement, expressed its general approval and conveyed a number of suggestions to the British Government to ensure protection of native interests. Hughes also received deputations from the Presbyterian Churches of Victoria and New 34 Royal Commission on the Affray at Goaribari Island, British New Guinea, Report, together with the Proceedings, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, P.P. no. 42/1904; Age, 3rd

and 30th May 1904; The Times, 14th May 1904. 35 Commonwealth Archives, External Affairs ’04/5658; Lewis Lett, Sir Hubert Murray of Papua (London, 1949). Lett wrongly identifies J. H. P. Murray with the Royal Commissioner. 166

THREE ELEVENS

South Wales urging greater support from the Government for the Australian settlers, who were in danger of being squeezed out by the French. He assured these that the Government thoroughly realized the importance of the islands to Australia, that negotiations were on foot to provide a regular mail service, and that the Government was opposed to dual control.*° During his four months in office Hughes established a solid reputation as

an administrator. Though no major issues arose, he displayed in dealing with a wide variety of potentially troublesome problems qualities, which had hitherto hardly been suspected beyond the Sydney waterfront, of decision and firmness combined with willingness to seek full information and to decide cases on their merits. Moreover, he had had occasion to raise his views somewhat beyond the narrow horizons to which his political activities had so far been restricted. New Guinea and the Pacific had come into his ken, though as yet he did not devote much attention to them. In Parliament, meantime, the Watson Ministry was unable to make much headway. The only Bill passed (and that was later repealed) was that fixing on the neighbourhood of Dalgety, on the high Monaro, as the site of the Federal Capital. The choice of a site had been under consideration for some time. The first Parliament had reached a deadlock between the two Houses, the House of Representatives favouring Tumut and the Senate Bombala. Expeditions had braved dust-storms and blizzards to inspect rival sites. Two of the most skilful tacticians in the Parliament, Sir William Lyne and Austin Chapman, were each determined to secure the prize for his own electorate and constantly produced new candidates as the rival district looked like succeeding. Resolved to put an end to this, Cabinet made what to Hughes in retrospect seemed “an absolutely demented decision”*’ to fix on Dalgety, and this choice was embodied in an Act which, after much debate in the Senate, was hastily passed by the other House. In the House of Representatives, however, almost the whole time of the Government was occupied by the discussion in Committee of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, which was carried on from where Deakin had

left it. Every clause was debated at length, but Watson’s willingness to make concessions and the consistent support of a group of Protectionists led

by Isaacs and Lyne enabled some progress to be made. Hughes did not play a very conspicuous part in the debates, but was held in reserve to deal with Reid, whose attacks he invariably followed with a speech of bantering sarcasm.** No doubt these duels were thoroughly enjoyed by both partici36 C.P.D., XIX, 1464, 1784-5; XX, 2856, 3681 ff.; XXI, 4029, 4084 ff.; Great Britain: Parliament, Correspondence relating to the Convention with France dated 20 Oct. 1906 respecting the New Hebrides (Cd. 3288), 1907; S.M.H., 9th August 1904. 37 Policies and Potentates, 56.

38 “A sort of joker to Reid’s right bower” (Palmer, 175); cf. Cockerill, 164. 167

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

pants, as well as by the House—one has the impression of two polished performers putting on a familiar “turn”. Apart from this, Hughes was occasionally called upon to draw on his intimate experience of unionism and of the working of the New South Wales Arbitration Court, in which

he had just completed his first important case as an advocate for the Trolley, Draymen and Carters’ Union. It was a little unfortunate that just as the Government were insisting that preference to unionists would not exclude any competent worker from employment, but merely make him join the appropriate union, Hughes’s own Sydney Wharf Labourers’ Union should have declared its books closed and refused certain applicants.®®

It was, in fact, on preference to unionists that the Government fell. An amendment making preference dependent on the wish of a majority of those engaged in the trade was carried against the Government, who declared that it would be impracticable. Later, they moved to recommit this clause, with others, and being again defeated, resigned. Watson had for some time realized that the Government could achieve

nothing useful. “It is distinctly better,’ he wrote to Higgins, “that Reid should be guilty of inaction than ourselves.”*” Hughes was less philosophical.

Deakin had prevented Reid from overthrowing the Labor Party at once;** he had, however, rejected Watson’s overtures for an alliance, which he had seemed to invite, in May. He had become increasingly critical of the Labor

Party, and had voted against them on the recommittal motion. It was obvious, too, that he had entered into an agreement with Reid to make it possible for the latter to take office. Hughes therefore was, in the heat of the moment, inclined to blame Deakin for the fall of the Government, and his speech on the recommittal motion is one of his most polished and biting pieces of invective.** Deakin, always sensitive, was deeply hurt by it, and was stung into his famous description, made in a speech outside Parliament, of Hughes as resembling “the ill bred urchin whom one sees dragged from a tart-shop, kicking and screaming as he goes”. Soon afterwards, to be sure, he recovered his urbanity and expressed regret for having made “so ‘tart’ a rejoinder” to Hughes’s attack.*®

There was only one more trial to be made. Deakin and Watson had each failed to secure stable government, and the Governor-General would not grant a dissolution. So Reid became Prime Minister, at the head of a Cabinet of four Free Traders and four Protectionists. But Deakin himself refused office and held aloof, and ten of his followers, including some of 39 C.P.D., XX, 2501-6, 2557, 2664; XXI, 4163-4. 40 Palmer, 177.

41 Age, 27th and 28th May 1904. 42 C.P.D., XXI, 4217 ff.

43.W. Murdoch, Alfred Deakin: a Sketch (London, 1923), 245. The “tart shop” phrase occurred in a speech at an Australian Natives’ Association banquet at Ballarat on 22nd August 1904, reported in the Age of the following day. 168

THREE ELEVENS

the most able, made a formal “alliance” with Labor, leaving Reid at best a majority of two. Reid moved rapidly into recess, though he did, by a nice irony, complete

the passage of the Arbitration Bill on which his two predecessors had fallen and which many of his own party intensely disliked. He also appointed a Royal Commission on the Tariff under the meticulous Sir John Quick, which was to bury the fiscal issue once for all under the 4,300 folio pages of its proceedings. Altogether, the Reid-McLean Government lasted eleven months, more

than half of which was spent in recess. Then Reid, whose position had grown weaker during the recess, chose to interpret a speech of Deakin’s at Ballarat as “notice to quit”, and when the House met made no effort to offer a serious programme and resigned with good humour. Each of the three parties in turn had failed to secure a stable combination, and the Parliament had run only half its term. Everyone was sick of change, and the next four and a half years were dominated by Deakin. This was the golden age of progressive liberalism in the Commonwealth. With a steadily dwindling party behind him, its more conservative section withdrawing to the “opposition corner”, but with the consistent support of

Watson and the Labor Party, Deakin went far towards filling in the outlines laid down by the first Parliament with social and industrial legislation of an advanced character.**

“The second Deakin administration,’ as Professor Greenwood has written, “differed in kind from any of its predecessors. Neither a machinery

nor a caretaker government, Deakin saw its task as that of laying the foundation of a new society.”*” To the Labor Party, too, is due some of the credit for the achievement of these years. It is idle to try to allot this piece of legislation to Labor, that to Deakin. Reid’s taunt of “Yes, Mr Watson”

is no less caricature than the claim sometimes made that the programme owed nothing to Labor suggestion. The differences were differences of emphasis and sometimes of timing: essentially the programme represented the ideals common to both parties, and the close understanding between Deakin and his more progressive followers (half his cabinet had been members of the “Alliance” with Labor) and Watson and the more pragmatic

section of the Labor Party helped to give shape to something that represented as nearly as possible the common aspirations of the Australian people. Hughes’s part in the selection of the Watson Government and his place,

ranking second to the Prime Minister, in it, suggest his standing in the party. After the Government’s fall, however, there was some grumbling in 44 Full accounts of Deakin’s second administration are given by Turner, 101-96, and by the present writer in Nation Building, 41-81. There are good summary accounts by Hancock in C.H.B.E., VII, i, 505-11; and by Greenwood in Australia: a Social and Political History (Sydney, 1955), 215-22. 45 Greenwood, 215.

169

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Caucus, as well as in the party outside, at Watson’s failure to press Labor’s case more strongly while in office, and also at his choice of colleagues and his willingness to enter into the “alliance” with the Isaacs group.*® Stung by this criticism, Watson in 1905 offered to resign the leadership, putting his

offer on the ground of his health, which had suffered from the strain of ofice and of the constant travelling between Sydney and Melbourne. Caucus, however, persuaded him to carry on, but with a deputy leader to assist him. Hughes and Fisher were the two candidates, and Hughes often told the story of how they withdrew for a cup of tea together while the choice was made. Hughes, on the score of ability and of his standing in the Watson Government, may well have expected to be chosen, but the choice fell on Fisher. This was more than the preference of the “safe” man over the brilliant (as Hughes in later years was inclined to represent it), or than the desire not to take both leader and deputy from the same State, though this may have been a factor. Certainly Fisher had an impeccably

orthodox Labor background, as a working miner with his roots in the movement from his Scottish boyhood. Though without eloquence, he gave

an impression of sincerity and cautious sagacity which was sometimes lacking from Hughes’s more brilliant flights. But Fisher was also much less closely associated with Watson, in whose Ministry he had ranked only fourth. His party in Queensland was traditionally more radical, and its socialism more doctrinaire, than was the fashion in New South Wales. At the 1905 Conference, when there had been a clash over framing an “objective” for the party, Fisher had voted for the Queensland motion favouring “the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”, against the successful version of Watson, which one delegate described scornfully as “a resolution that even Mr Deakin himself would subscribe to”. Fisher, though cautious in expression, was more definitely a socialist than either Watson or Hughes, and his candidature had therefore the support of the party malcontents. Hughes’s sharp tongue, too, and his

inability to suffer fools, did not increase his popularity in Caucus. For eccentrics like King O’Malley, whose influence with the rank and file was steadily growing, he had no time at all, and showed it. Also, he was at this time extremely busy outside Parliament, whereas Fisher, like Watson, was

able to give his full energies to the Caucus and the House. It is perhaps significant that Fisher was a delegate to both the 1905 and the 1908 Federal Conferences; Hughes did not take part in a Federal Conference until IQI5. Two years later, in October 1907, when Watson’s health, and perhaps his increasing distaste for accumulating pressures, did cause him to resign his leadership, Fisher was almost automatically elected leader, with Hughes as 46 Some of this criticism found expression at the 1905 Federal Conference, for example, in

the discussion of the objective, of the selection of Ministers, and of alliances. See A.L.P. Federal Conference (Brisbane, 1905), Official Report, passim; Crisp, 144. 170

THREE ELEVENS

deputy. The two were to work closely together for the next eight years, but there was never between them the intimacy or close community of thought that had marked the collaboration of Hughes and Watson. Once, years later, Hughes was asked about his relations with the two men. “Excellent,” he

replied. “Never a hard word with either.” But in the next breath he was relating how on some occasion when Fisher, as Prime Minister, had announced Commonwealth intervention in a strike, Hughes had banged on the Prime Minister’s desk and threatened resignation. The intervention did not take place.*7 With Deakin, Fisher’s relations were correct, but never as close or admiring as Watson’s had been, and his accession to the leadership hastened the inevitable breach between the two parties. In the election of 12th December 1906 Reid tried, with some success, to drive a wedge between the more conservative Protectionists and Deakin, whose policy he represented as subservient to that of Labor. In a series of

barnstorming tours up and down the country he paraded his famous “socialist tiger”, and made the blood of his audience run cold with pictures of socialization of the most extreme kind, and “a bitter war of classes”, as contrasted with the benefits of “industrial liberty and free private enterprise”. His various supporters embroidered this with charges of blasphemy, irreligion, disloyalty, and “robbing hen-roosts”. Deakin fought hard to retain the position of his centre Protectionist Party. In Victoria he held his ground, but in New South Wales, where the Protectionists had never been strong, Reid was largely successful in his tactics of making a clear fight between himself and Labor. The duel between Reid and Hughes was now carried from the House to the country, which resounded with the verbal pyrotech-

nics of the protagonists. While Watson quietly stressed the essentially moderate and practical nature of Labor’s policy, Hughes tore Reid’s exaggerations to shreds and exposed the inconsistencies of his political career. By way of contrast with the “gyrations” of Reid the Labor Party might in fact be called conservative. “The Labor party’s attitude towards Socialism is in essentials what it has always been. Personally I am neither more nor less of a Socialist than the day I was first returned to Parliament, and gave

to Mr Reid a loyal and enthusiastic support in his policy of land value taxation.”**

Reid now proclaimed that industrial arbitration and preference to unionists spelled the end of individual liberty: Hughes reminded him that he had himself put these on the statute-book of New South Wales.*® As to the charge that Hughes was a renegade from free trade: “I defy him to point to one occasion where he, ‘the great fighting tiger’ of the freetrade party,

sprang upon the enemy that I did not spring with him—roaring terribly 47 W. M. Hughes to the author, in 1951. 48 D.T., 13th November 1906. 49 D.T., 26th November 1906. 171

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

the while. How long I have stood shivering from inaction between springs I need not say.”°° The Labor Party’s policy was very practical, and the bulk of those who voted for them were not socialists. “Just as the man in Moliére said, when told the meaning of the word ‘prose’, ‘Why, I have been writing prose all

my life and didn’t know it, so the people had been voting for Socialism all the time without knowing it.”’* What they sought was not equality of persons, but equality of opportunities. At present they found the country in a bog-hole, and the means they proposed to pull it out were a progressive land tax to make land available for settlement and the nationalization of monopolies, but of no other industries. And finally (in reply to Mr Bruce Smith) the Labor Party was “just as religious, loyal, moral, intelligent, and well-educated as any other”. “A man who... apparently confuses Socialism with communism is beyond argument ... but no Christian can be ignorant of the fact that the early Christians were communists.”°? Reid had the best press, for both the main Sydney papers were on his side, but Hughes, addressing meetings in his own electorate and elsewhere, and supplementing inadequate reporting by long letters to the editor, more than held his own on points, while the electors thoroughly enjoyed the fun.”?

It was, in fact, the liveliest election since Federation, all the more because it was a campaign of generalities and debating points rather than of substance. But while Hughes featured on the national stage, and saw the contest as one between himself and Reid, he was given his closest run yet in West Sydney. The recent redistribution had included some solid middle-class areas with the waterside districts of the old electorate. The electorate of West Sydney [wrote the Daily Telegraph] is a peculiarly composite one. . . . The aristocratic regions of Forest Lodge, and the still more aristocratic and old-established area of Glebe Point, are united with the

busy manufacturing and shipping part of Pyrmont, the mercantile and waterside working territory known in State politics as the Phillip Division, and the thickly peopled districts which lie around Blackwattle Bay and the

head of Darling Harbour, as well as the unique country down towards Miller’s Point, including the historic “Rocks”’.54 50 D.T., 13th November 1906. 51 D.T., 7th November 1906.

°2D.T., 14th, 7th, and 20th November 1906; S.M.H., 20th November 1906. 53 By far the fullest reports of this campaign are to be found in D.T. from 7th November (Hughes’s opening speech) to 12th December 1906. Letters from Hughes appear in S.M.H., 4th October 1906 (“Mr Reid and the Labor Caucus”, 14 columns); D.T., 13th November (“Mr Hughes in reply to Mr Reid’); S.M.H. and D.T., 20th November (‘“‘The Manners and Ideals of Mr Bruce Smith”); S.M.H. and D.T., 26th November 1906 (“Mr Reid, Mr Hughes, and Socialism”); D.T., 27th November 1906 (“Mr Bruce Smith and his Ideals”); S.M.H., 4th December 1906 (‘“‘Mr Reid and Mr Hughes’). 54 24th November 1906. 172

THREE ELEVENS

To contest this new amalgam, the anti-socialist organization had chosen Mr James Burns, a mechanical engineer for many years employed by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company at Pyrmont. Burns was no orator, as his only speech reported at any length shows,” but “there is a bluff heartiness in his style that makes him exceedingly popular”. He was a working man,

and well known in part, at least, of the electorate, though he had not previously been active in politics.°” His deficiencies in oratory were supplied by others—first Cook and later Reid himself paid Hughes the compliment of an attack on his own ground.’ There was a good deal of rowdyism in

this and other electorates, and in West Sydney interjectors had to be removed by the police at almost every one of Burns’s meetings, and at one the candidate was pelted with bags of flour. Finally his chairman wrote a letter to the Press, complaining of . . . the most disgraceful exhibition it has been my lot to witness in an experience of forty-five years in electioneering. Missiles of all sorts were thrown, even moist muck from the gutters treated with assafoetida being used. The cause which requires such conduct as this must be a bad one, and

it is to be hoped that it will have the effect of arousing the respectable portion of the community, more especially the women, to the necessity of exercising their franchise.*®

The Honorary Secretary of the West Sydney Labor League replied denying that the obstruction was organized, and blaming youthful larrikins,

but admitting that “when untrue statements are made and such abuse as characterising the Labour party (with one exception) as professional loafers

... is used, it is indeed difficult to restrain the temper of even cool, hardheaded, thinking workers”.°? It is hard to resist the conclusion that in some of Hughes’s supporters zeal outran discretion. Polling day, however, showed that the electors would not be drawn to the ballot by either coruscating exhibitions of debating or by disgust with rough-house tactics. In West Sydney Hughes was returned by 7,274 votes against 6,056 for Burns, in a poll of barely fifty per cent. In Australia as a whole less than half the electors voted. Labor gained one seat, later increased to two by a by-election, giving them 27 members. Deakin was reduced, 55 D.T., 14th November 1906. “There was absolutely no difference between the Socialists

who openly said their object was to take everything and the Labour party’s socialism. . .. Perhaps some of the politicians thought that if these industries were nationalised there would be some good jobs going. They were always on the look out for an opportunity to rake in the shekels. . . . By their attitude on the naval subsidy, the Queen Victoria memorial, and other ag. matters the Labour party had shown themselves to be traitors to their country and their “56 D.T., 22nd and 24th November 1906. 57 Cook in Glebe Town Hall (D.T., 9th November 1906); Reid in the Centenary Hall,

York Street (D.T., 1st December 1906). Both speeches are also reported in S.M.H. 58 §.M.H. and D.T., 7th December 1906 (Letter from P. L. Lucas). 59 §.M.H. and D.T., 8th December 1906 (Letter from W. J. Jennings). 173

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

after the by-election, to 16, by the defection of his conservative wing rather than by loss of seats. The anti-Socialist groups mustered in all 32, but these were divided between Reid and the Protectionist “Corner”.®° The keystone of the understanding between Deakin and Labor was the “New Protection”, the policy of “securing protection to the manufacturers

through the Customs House, and for the workmen through the Industrial Arbitration Acts’.® The idea, and even the term, were not new, but it now became the means of drawing Labor to protection, while reconciling the Protectionists and their manufacturing supporters to a substantial instalment of social legislation. In the first part, at least, it succeeded. Labor free-traders, such as Hughes, were coming to see protection as the settled policy of the

country, and were willing to accept it as such, provided there were the necessary machinery to ensure that the workers participated in its benefits. So far as the “White Australia” policy was economic, they came to see that

tariff protection against the products of cheap foreign labour was its necessary complement. In the case of Hughes, too, the nationalism that was

a powerful element in his make-up made it easier for him to accept this departure from the free-trade dogma imbibed in his youth and nurtured on the Sydney waterfront. Henceforth he was a whole-hearted convert to the possibilities of protection.

In June 1908 the High Court by a majority—the two more recently appointed judges, Higgins and Isaacs, dissenting—ruled that the method by which it had been sought to give effect to the New Protection, an excise duty rebatable to manufacturers whose conditions of labour were certified by the Arbitration Court to be “fair and reasonable”, was unconstitutional, since the object of the legislation was not taxation, but the regulation of industrial conditions, which was the province of the States.®* Other legisla-

tion of special interest to the Labor Party had also been set aside on challenge by the High Court, and the feeling was growing that only a constitutional change more drastic than anything Deakin would agree to would make it possible for the Commonwealth to legislate effectively to regulate industrial conditions and to control the growth of powerful industrial combines. In June 1908 the passage of the Invalid and Old Age

Pensions Act, with the Surplus Revenue Act on which it depended, achieved perhaps the last of the social objectives that Labor and the Deakinites held in common. Until the revision of the tariff on which the Government was engaged,

Labor unrest was held in check, though with increasing difficulty. The Fourth Political Labor Conference, held at Brisbane in July, had adopted a motion prohibiting the party absolutely from entering into any alliance or 60 Sawer, 62-3.

61 A j..P. Federal Conference, 1905, 17: Motion by Mr Billson, M.L.A. 626 C.L.R. (1908) (Melbourne, 1909), 41-135; Nation Building, 66-70. 174

THREE ELEVENS

granting, or promising, any immunity from opposition. This finally banged and bolted the door on any possibility of an understanding with Deakin’s following. The Labor Party was the largest single party in the House, and it was growing understandably tired of using its votes to keep the smallest in office. Increasingly, too, it seemed likely that they had little more to gain from Deakin. In some directions he had reached the constitutional limits; in others he was bounded by the liberal dislike of socialism. The rest of his programme for the session consisted partly of defence measures, which they

could as well carry out themselves, and partly of technical measures to regulate and simplify business operations, in which they were uninterested, and which seemed to them altogether remote from the root of the matter. Deakin was left in office just long enough to pass the legislation finally fixing Canberra as the federal capital site, and then, in November 1908, Fisher abruptly withdrew his support, and Deakin fell. Fisher’s first government, even more than Watson’s, was a mere interlude. Unlike Watson, Fisher was not left to choose his own cabinet, but only to allot portfolios among the ministers selected by Caucus. Nevertheless, his Ministry included all the available members of its predecessor—

Fisher, Hughes, Batchelor, Mahon, and McGregor. Josiah Thomas, a veteran of the New South Wales party who had originally proposed Watson for the leadership,®* and Pearce and Tudor, who had proved their capacity as Chairman of Committees in the Senate and Whip in the Representatives

respectively, were the new men. Hutchison, a South Australian who did not long outlive the Government, was added without portfolio. Hughes, fortified by his five years’ standing at the Bar, was now Attorney-General. In the few weeks remaining before the Christmas recess nothing could be done except to finish up some oddments of business left over by Deakin.

The continuance of the Government clearly depended on the inability of

the three parties now forming the opposition to unite, but Labor was confident that Deakin, at least, was too deeply committed to social reform and the tariff for a coalition to be possible.** Fisher promised to announce

the Government’s policy to his constituents at Gympie before the next session.

Deakin, however, was now determined to make an end of the threeparty system. Ever since his return from the Colonial Conference of 1907 he had secretly been aware that his mental powers were beginning to fail, and increasingly anxious to withdraw from public life. Only an acute sense of work to be finished and of responsibility for the future of his little band of faithful supporters kept him in politics.° Labor’s attitude to alliances, and the hostility of their local organizations to “good as Labor” men offered 63 Bulletin, 28th April 1904. 64 Cf. Murdoch, 278. 65 [bid., 270.

175

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

no hope for his followers in that quarter. Reid, with whom Deakin would never have worked, handed over the leadership of his party to Cook at the beginning of the recess, and Cook, since free trade was no longer a serious issue, was in search of a policy to replace the “necklace of negatives” that had sufficed for Reid’s anti-socialist crusade. The Corner would be happy to

reunite with Deakin, provided he were divorced from Labor support. Deakin would have preferred to stand aside again, as from the ReidMcLean coalition, and his choice as Liberal leader fell on Forrest, whose record of opposition to Labor was impeccable. Forrest was willing, but bungled the business, and in the end Deakin had to meet Cook.°® Fisher’s

speech at Gympie,’ which had a distinctly socialist flavour, served to frighten any waverers, and when Parliament reassembled on 26th May 1909 Fisher was faced with a united Opposition. Deakin once again became Prime Minister, at the head, as he wrote to his sister, of “the whole of my opponents since Federation, those who left me (like Forrest) because I was allied with Labour, and the remnant of my own party”.°® Thus ended the

era of three-party Parliaments, which had established the form of the Commonwealth and made it one of the most socially advanced and democratic nations of the time. Henceforth, the party division was strictly on class lines.

66 [bid., 280. 87 20th March 1909. 68 Murdoch, 281.

176

CHAPTER XI

Down to the Sea HE YEARS BETWEEN 1904 and 1910, when the Labor Party was for the

most part in opposition, were filled with many-sided and restless activity by Hughes, far beyond the limits of his parliamentary duties. In part this activity may have been due to a sense of frustration caused by Fisher’s election as deputy and later as successor to Watson. Though Hughes was to serve Fisher loyally, he had no very high opinion of his ability, and to one of his ambition and fast-growing consciousness of his own powers it must have been galling to see the highest prize of all, which had seemed within his grasp, shut off, apparently permanently, by a man of his own age. Though Hughes appeared to accept his disappointment, it may well have encouraged him to seek other avenues in which the top place might yet be his own.

Also making for unsettlement during this period were his domestic surroundings. On 1st September 1906 Elizabeth Hughes died of heart failure,

after a long period of invalidism, at the age of forty-two. When they had come together, Hughes had not begun to pull himself out of the ruck, and the Balmain shop, which had been the starting point of his political career, had very likely been due to her rather than to him. These at least were the halcyon days of the union—looking after the shop while Hughes was out mending umbrellas and taking in washing to eke out his exiguous income, she was in a world she understood and could contribute her full share to the partnership." When Hughes began to rise in politics, a gulf very soon opened between them. Essentially a simple woman, she was unable to share either his intellectual interests or his new social life.* Bewildered, and then

hurt, she saw him move more and more out of her world. Her health, too, began to fail, and by the time they moved to Gore Hill she was a more or less permanent invalid. Such a home, with six young children, 1 Sun-Herald (Sydney), 6th July 1958: reminiscence of Alfred Hansell. 2 An anecdote told by Senator McCallum on the authority of D. R. Hall, a fellow lawstudent with Hughes, is relevant here. One evening when Hughes came home his wife said, “Billy, that nice lady Miss —-——” (naming a woman prominent in the labour movement) “was here this afternoon.” “Oh,” said Hughes, who disliked nothing more than being called Billy, “what did she want?” “She said I ought to help you with your politics; that I ought to join the league and go to meetings.” “Ethel,” said Hughes, turning to his twelve-year-old daughter, “vou know that tomahawk I keep in the woodshed?” “Yes, dad.” “Well, if that Miss ——— comes here again worrying’’—with great emphasis—‘‘your mother, you take that tomahawk and hit her on the head with it!”

177

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

offered little chance of work or of rest, and Hughes found more and more to occupy him outside. Nevertheless the marriage survived, and in her

one extant letter to him, after some trivialities about the weather, her health, Hordern’s sale, and the children, she concludes: “Good night, Will: always remember this: that once I loved you very dearly and tho: we may

drift apart in the future: I shall always remain, Your Faithful Wife E. Hughes.”? A fortnight later she was dead. From this time until his second marriage in 1911 Hughes had no settled domestic life. He retained the cottage at Gore Hill, but spent little time in it. His eldest daughter, Ethel, aged eighteen when her mother died, kept house for him and later acted as his hostess in Melbourne when necessary.

Arthur, the eldest boy, was twenty-two, but the other four were still at school.* To some extent, this background may explain the diversity and intensity of Hughes’s life until his second marriage gave him the domestic stability which his first had failed to achieve. For the first part of the period following the fall of Watson’s Government, Hughes’s most important preoccupation was with the affairs of the Royal Commission on the Navigation Bill, which had been set up by that Government and of which he was Chairman. Not only did the actual work

of the Commission, in which Hughes throughout took a leading role, directly occupy a great amount of time and energy, but Hughes used this opportunity to make himself expert on all aspects of this very complex industry, thus extending the industrial knowledge he had already gained on the waterfront. Section 98 of the Constitution declares that “The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping”. Though there were some doubts how far this power was limited by prior Imperial legislation, especially the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894,

it was taken for granted that the Commonwealth would in fact legislate at an early stage to unify the jumble of requirements, often conflicting, imposed by the Imperial Act and the various State laws on shipping using Australian ports. There was, however, a wide difference between the conservatives who

wished to do no more than to incorporate the relevant provisions of the Imperial law, and those who saw the power as an opportunity to place Australia in the van of the movement for the reform of conditions, and especially of conditions of employment, in the shipping industry. At the end of 1902 Kingston had instructed Dr Wollaston, the CollectorGeneral of Customs, to draft a comprehensive Bill, characteristically giving

him just under two months, including Christmas, to complete the work. 3E, Hughes to W. M. Hughes, 14th August 1906 (Hughes Papers). 4The ages are given on Elizabeth Hughes’s death certificate as: Arthur, 22; Ethel, 18; Lily, 13; Dolly, 11; Ernest, 9; Charles, 7. One child had died in infancy. 178

ILY TELEGRAPH, THURSDAY. NOVEMBER 7, 1909. ;

StI N ee &,¢ : .

[evrrrvevOTNVUUnUUI UDO ONUDTTuTreTTUT IU TUT STTCErTT” 0 OTC ret eaaeetcetnnid case temmcetesnctniahai iat ttaait hint iRndbeaei etal nai Abeta hAaNte eee eaaeaena A aM ttn aittadaeeennaetaeadaa tatiana tieatattaeeiata tN MeeaNta tai ieiaaeeaeaaeeee eens a rn u . " g " we awn . . . a

LABOR’s AIM.

*on . ‘ renner aia 2anilSSS, row.ee ~ _ nt, Enoesenaeey oeen Someeenerretcreny, sede Tee REET

Ge py chee gree Sin ae

: ‘ai ia:aRy OM 7) aCe a ee sporssnpciinenee a pe wes ereati Mv alt FE S eects wenn fpipainn Pod eee eS Se mae

3 Pog ee TE ees ; goer ereunene ene reereoe oad

: §g iParente emo snmntet _ iy ere 4 OW S oonFES innavaseca cant im FLwd gyi HER eet oe ne

epictaaneincee ad § Se ese eee BIE Me FAP mere eg ttt CE rn ae ee © ne ae erent ane “Po OF on Oe areca < ger eae Sapte a ~ ewe ae ee

aa RN gre Oy NEN SE eee cp i ak pee: ee Joe. . oe, EE eS See er ges ees eeeee BWnet gigjay) Pigg A taaeA a ee Eee oo” Se ee AfRiipuesed. ‘i ne ads in ee \ See epee ie p\n{tey |Dery uae Beye i aeLt.| ES iccRey nate alNL aneint Hiee ; DER PMI ae a-‘eWA Wi LY aio:geties eaeSPAT 10 ee RS Pe ONE fi oe SS RR, cage re sc ER ere EO oe Wie oe eee «St ae gee OS fy eee aN ee AY CE

PEN ae ee , SerSGT eg “yh en 3Gek ens ee Se, ail.LE : Seeng Ee N ee tie pee ed BeésBe AE , CEE =emeSiings te aana em, Ee

ith PN a ae : RN ee ier yes des Ee Ot io) MT Hi saa

~ UESee SThes OE Ss me _ ar S aon‘ [pdeies 12, Maze Om iieee SS Seen FT ae ‘1isd Sees PES ieee esRAR 5 Hh EE iOS. eee - wee ~ otarnsns) png Se ceeSN Bend Hh I tenfylieee ate A EENCaN: ats te |ay _ a WS Bis Re RS Sh titan, See ost wit “ So Sr SN} wh ef - en HN ED oa sak he sale THE eS ons, Gees eae Ee me ANSE camcwcton FO TIES gO] Nearer ceases RRNA A 0 Seg WAR RRR FOIE FUER

She ? Ni : att 3 vee pu *o,cee oe e Ree Seesneee cement cic SIMOES Sot fae esRE” dab ig ee ANS yepa NL dB } SeZ; raON SS SSSNS RARER eee yy | TD) é\ ogy SSS eeMi ae BEEN OE ap a Sy ete cee Aik eePOE [Es SAS: Boas Ssgeiin ; yr » Ww Lh 3 #4 F . < oe TEL, Exes Sat sarees. einer at ccanaenomiepanaae oe Penance iccceearus, Se Ai! y re! Cae

At SE i ae re er ww nee” WEIN ESSER Oe aie RAN ff i oes te

NO enh Wy gee ete Ae Wainy cate,cc LA i BN, acm FEE SS OE Ran RS = ENNSE aang oeaS s AR OreseR giMIN PeSREFeepl opta qedLY mau ite|} te MT EASee > & NZRe * apie ee coma NE, were cancer g ore R hei Us HERS AE He BS OES Sagat if OS EN ee eS BRT Kd os) ‘ 7 2) aman % = pret & se Gr gy ' & ; ti Ps

rotate a Te gs yy, Ne Fy Paes ee a aa ea — Ny a Lo ae . Re er

eef OEN. RENO o— =A RAS 2 e. (ng IE MIN SE (|AN mLAITHN, oceans \SSE eees Ree ag cust red ER ES oe PED BES Facer aiSAB aoT aesOTT Region ~ se HAS HRN Soe 5 woes AEE a hones NN SS Se eg ; oP itBaD i feBe ByROK Pst ii:;;eS oe asSEAN \, oy Tasik S74 Ge WT Leos % SO e Sota LEE At, : “yayOMIT yy ‘2 4 OV Pahieee R ‘ : eS NNUS eu SOSLE eon BAe HG AS

Wg i Yr iera HN == —— *2Ke ZZ f NS RY uty YA MUM ED Re Auta Yop & dt Ni Ea 7 SOU RUE aT Wooo ) NS eens ey PARDEE, aah th Nite BS ¥ ‘ . Hf Aiiee REL DA Ab ESS Rea a ie MT mae ‘ ‘

_wast Sy Se PEAS i' :7_\ \Smee Aa: is / Zag ES | = a oo Wy 7 TY BT \ Xe AL Soe LH oA TARR ayeM OtNaee NN es= BA 4 4eT. . oe : y x] $ 5 3 amet iy is Meet eB Yoned Race oe 8 ' dS Lyn PSR RUN UE 3 |. ‘ , in . a OF Serb Se Se Ay nh bel ae HG! 5 wprevnnicernion AS bo ‘it Pg Oe oS RAR AE EES y MN: * : on : ; :

) Ane LEB NT AA ii 1:| oINT 2 As4AS| SN | ', MARAE IG rea. Gin EEE COL fil eu ays} THER Sg. pssst ,

:AIAG Ley ZF ME aeHae Habs i TS. oAa tilt %i , % VYSEMIf A ean 7 oe gay’ deh PRATER PIURe NR FtDR ERMAN SEEMS EOE ;, HON ,ADEE iSacre TEPER RaCTSS Re WH eas iay HM ae ONO RPE TAL UA | ‘ £9 - ti 54 awe ERE BNR AUD BR Fe at LY PE ves * .

BANAL? See eek MMM oo ae BS Se AER IVUURLAAAL i Pilg Ya LOO i atka; }HL ,EA eeARR ee. ox AGE AR Ne 7YA SL Beee oes YLT RTKAS OZR ARONA PORTAL TRA ‘ : ‘ p Tee. Ao: Le ONT SL RR TAG a. LY {nee Us gos eeege” Ysa POU HIT LET Be ME SIG LE, ROEWe A RETA \ ON LAE FOEO ENS As ET|.oo. oY AAA Ta vA ODS Og, aE AYE RARE SCY Ry Ceara i pb “f

‘ az ee ihe t oi SR , Oe | SLLE SELES Go% SERSSERGE I GOESSS S ee. Yt Py UY,: OSS € 4 re| 7_“.3 oe : ™_ :. :

L 2 I. VAR or My Cae: ae ST rstintaneea EH Hi Hh ‘”% 3 \VERRAN Pedr ; Piven ee Satesit cng! aesx4 “4 Bzep SEEage) EO4 Maen ee SR at Es A oe Frode S40 ee . oy cen ateee tial COs ee aaVos ase =RES gee Se ry Ay BAN TH Se :; af 2TSN 4ome tre peapramitaay.”” +f a resaee z.aEN Sanya aie: : Th geese Ait Peete Hy ee eee alee .*”3aEEaANS a} NS ee EE ae is ¥ |See: xS94 oe ee ates oa, a Oe Foci Aaa eeTITES: tigia gd Gg a Meas Gs EE of baoe Boe woe Beat Sates © yi u{sPRAY Gi tit BASONS Uae ene thee ER% age: Ad eae % fe: %

ea en aM NE NBN eee Ra ENOL 5 ee _ Ma :

petereccantsiet Re NTE! LAS NaN WE) Milles Tea ». on, RP. emette iy Gres Ree LIST RAS )177 Loy | iad " TS ETI CN reEA eet:SGD GEi Ett AE I fiBges iy he : AEFea 7oot mks \ asSNE f Ra BEEN H fledff on ; TE hl 5" Monat etary SBE PS IS eS aes | she ESET SEA oF; f° BEES. ait Ber \ SN Re Pdf} j f Bats PoP NaSs Nay i ph Ea 2 oO, OTIS co, § "e) iP tee IKE, mg AS BAAS i HitHA APSE oy teUe dleSOS te ee it Cei, ~re . i ERNN RQAAAS QASVa YilidaeBeige ge ae: 627% : Sagas “3, Oe‘.‘"edoeRAs ffELEY Fy be ES ;(ce PFs aES: hos tibescet SY sySS wy ates q Pia.he as}%3a wilhatineensemnsneesneititiany Hadid Ts : rae gf Higes . < WES Oy 7)eet ) mex! patentee Abs&3 Satgs ti , gee UNE folhe:

A uh ANN NS Mig 4 Ye oe Ua: ee zs hd ; He 8 Le = SE A LES hf Cpe Ss YS 4ae oonee , ee AEE AR eee . = EEN NZ pe Fe YY oe a ON RES Ss > eee oe ee e . } te wie eas 2 ise Bae ie i - .ip; a:. pan SS Se NS ; jSeeey a fF “Se ae ia 23 GEES 2 MPEP: feepeeseceetenteee. Seer eyass ' WN Ss Y emerrtrer of agi : A dn” ~*Sot, * Be eenes Me S BEEP SSsgetig F pPEseGs s “ .-a. Pa RSS SsON hs §SRE Srrtnepeneemaprertit aed 22 G 3356 Serrano SOR eZSL eens oya & rennet, Beg: Ge EEN Beis?§Bes Oy oan, oreSee ON Weegee Se ree a”i) {Rwen ; : AOR .cittines Be Bein Sages leh gyBehe EER ygf&ee Seiseil BRS ee SS See es il r . ee CN LE aSees AS BOSSE i ES oe Re aeeaBes eee ee gave: WN. eeetre eee eeener ty rip erpoy; es tg 8):oe Tie Seereteset WaidSS saeSS 4 ioas eaeNeg wee er eae ae Be A wth MEER 84 a“ i : : -siqSee an ae Be eoeeSeige ew ES sonnet I ee ais ' Sone 7 Sek Nea A A ? ne GAP we ha ‘ S Soroecengennniennvthetiansittiony, ‘ ° ee Bea ese gets FETS SELLE

PE ee ng E> Giahy: “ NS Sok eco aay m — as thee ete ae ‘a * oS eta SPR SE Pegs 1 NEES, SF be RS PS, Or eas ee :

é! . 8eR : ama p5 Tre a3ana, Roe 8 ee Pee igh ae : ee cee aaBehoie POS: EES (ESS HE 3CaF Soo ; i. : = SeRKP) ee SSSefe renyamag enece srnsoevictiosserastmagwarine: HOLE a 1 BR Cee, nenVe a or NEatte presenta SS ais 7 TN LS Ssese SaasLR FEES TEES, Sighs aeBeas ee {a _— Ae ee ey wee: emerge ee ace OIBES EL wer a c=canted areca netataw anaespeakornnngg a "Seay § Rap OE Pog 1 ee a ne pron aeie fern po conees aNibe eg eetip Moca {1 BSE EEE SEES es : ad17ators, we ——— BL CE TERRES v 8: “teae = =eees mond naaneHees ‘ees Xs : oiidsbc8t00, ERtBERET ES eae SRPipars of ie TH iced? $2 aa aeeemmnieed ere oee. cst . ppiont eemosmeenesee Rca wes ey ps, Besfpecoe Se : we a ‘a ig . santas. i Minow eee me ge a Bae Bed we eee Fl * aTTsabecnenoeseenceneesmereetaar Bee gee RA SRRaR IRN EES Ras iHLtleaE. 3E; aN a4 Paes Sprite Soa Slee Ceeke Sree ewe oi ae .RES 7!ee fine ¥ . x7 a nen ge ER \eeneneineetet re see. a pe LF. See Bei be eel ; Bi eee enswoese SEES co ES EO :

een Bus at Lgtns es omen |! PeiCia hd me EE SpeeSSEe “ee ey ae eee teeta npettane : ee . a . 5. ‘OGa eee ee Boas comet i PHB oo Pe. eee ee

: ors a mmemnrstencncmrceneen elaaeeit coer Weveseotrrnwcoronnnene Meee eS ia go CMG ; eee ae Lt ee Se * : : wow rotenone ER At 00h eeaane, ON evens ee 2: BoP: Semen eed ts oa SHEE Sy les

& =e SS ey EE ee "2ie. @ Hg ae

ee oon Se See = ae a perk

: oni enna eaeeee iteSERS aoeeenieeeccrs TASC 2 eeeke re ea sa/ ae ee ‘ , nant eae Pines thee Sees 1: Sai ater eee eeeemaeme REPS) ees *caer argSees SnocechAE ores ee «epee ON emeatetie Se PeeSerene Le” pS

ee ee re coeniaeg eae ae oe eee b a aes sf ee ;r Ree pec. eee sien, so” ee a SS OR —-— SR Ce oo: Be me SO: se: aS yRRR Se ONSe moan eee creae on ES gee :neeS ;; ES : iSeat aU So age aORS "ange SN ee Res oR RENT Se“SSS OTR ROC Rey oO .

; Bee ee ee ea Seat : RR harsh « e RES aE OR % rg o , RE neail

ne lL Cl ie :eee : SEE eo, SESS bee oe ee ge 2 wbAA ts oe : : ay a . Pe SSE eeoe ae oe ee ee SE SES: eserrrrhLr a rrrlUC CU :ee2:ge . ak ff FF BR Se eR eeee ae Bo :_. ;.: re OS eee ec ee ee ae BR SS ES Sa 5

: oS BES SESSA ME ee baa ery see secre eee eer i

a : SESS STP TS CEE ISR ges ceniions | nat ecne se none mene

F oRB Coie, PEE PEE Ces PL . a :GEES PORTPRESS EE EEEIS UaeEsi ee ee ees ee ee ee et eaBe Seee hyeeUEC

: tty : : : : : a ._ SESS Se [eS See SoA SUS Ee eee ee ee ESe eee eo es ee ee

| .a |.. |ee ee See r~S~—r”—i—“‘—OC—i—COCOrsCrsC:sCSsCVSCisCXsiCrzi*sC‘ COC SoeSe Sad Rg cay BE -7aan ,| 7A SERS CS ES eerSSSESE Rete nk OES cad ae ee ee ERE RS Se RU G “0e ae : oetr. :SR .8ag __eo ois ;rrrSeas cde ee eeSRetainies eo eee eeee 2 gay eeee r—“—i—Cr*sCisCC BFae . - bat “ Lo .: :ar SESE “SSS Bg En Se eeee SECTS Se ESSE Se ee RES Be eee aoeRE Lo Ls Se ;aeA : 4TE CUP a “EEE : aSTN SESS Le eeeeee rene ee2En ae eeeeeoc Sed Dae . AL ees Ar on HES OS SoSee Ss Sseee Se ee SSE SE Se 02 SRI SUSE a vo Bedi RS -SESE : OSL SEEE Bee Sn ae RES oy Sa Shee nd

aeJeee . : ; ia ee ag OR SSE E eeaS ee Es UEee3 ee Coe 2 .ee a eee EE7JSS

'BE eaeROR 7 Big,- oO 6 | | wo fs 7EEE a ee :Oe eee SEER ES ee oimer ROU CaSeeeae SSUES Rio , . ee Lot use Rs eete ee eeee eree ee ee ea Pe eee reSEE Eeea Bose ae re a . Pe ee ee ee a ee LL oo | | oe : fs 3 eo eee ee er See aeee Teh er tae‘SER Sees Beye ONL. ..eo JOR oS fo AMUSE -eee Rptinemm aa oa on te SSS SOSee cee She ES Se OS Oa eee ae es po ey eee ee Be! . JSR es, EER P+ GP epee RRR RRS ee ee ee SURE See Sore BREE i et BEET, PSSISEEE USS Th. J Tb SES RR ca Tc EEN See Seon SSE ee ne eee ceeee ee... Og ESSSE SSNs ts EES. aeAES eeeeoeee aeeeee pO RES CECE fp a EEER a Reais PP,SR 1h, ceSeae ee ecOe ae ee ESE re (7 ._ :—aSRS ya Ponte ena Se oe fice: ae eeeae SSS a,EEN : es .:LT= ESS: fone Pe aie pe Ree geSh ee Recent ona eeeae se es eRe Ee AE ES Se Pog ee

ie eeah en z meg SE, RSE eh noe, Pee eee BR Re eS ee ee Ee eeee SE eee ee a:"RR CGE ane ROO Se REE eee ee ee cme EEE eee :gD Ps pees aSSSR NRE Se ES oe ee ee 22 Se agees ; iARR -Shug Loheg (Bah wt SS Bo ee Se RS Sa Ee Re ee aSES aris ca sa : Sete, SRE

ae: gee oF5 es SeSpout Re ae RE a Sonn eeeSee Og ee eee ae peeRoaai a hoe EE ro a8,nes. ‘.f.con ee SETUBL CESSSS SSeee Seshnrineeara ees pace)

7= 2: “on ig jt- aPeas ee ec pe enn ene eR Penenipane maeeROR ies a Beg ae A Seeoeeeee aaerate NS RSE eee gags ae Fee SEES SE 2S ee a Ee = rE r a Se Ss ee Ree ga ae Sean ean nnn meee SES SAREE Eee Suit as 2 3aiFge£yeF_. # a ae Be ee i Se eae gee Rae ee CE eR ae Pee ee ee ee ae Bok 8 Be RR etic Reoaneese SARS SS SR Same er sree neonanareaannumtenaeets SORE SUE ee cece SEES. SSUES a Se SESE oe Be s

a dig $4 3 EES So ee SS ee eer ara nS SR Si a cin ne: TOES Se EE ne Sen oc ene Eg gh gi ER -“TeeeeES ee aeieaaranatie ORES SI eeSR Re Seis en een: 7eeears SEE Se nen eeSos NR RS -— #4 |=aie. |Sg ae ee ponents F828 eee RCE CES ASPS SRRges, aSS ya s aimee aunaetiuaniee eseciara eaeSeaaa SEE ESRE SS a aees eeBe 2g fo SORER Sey GE RE ee Pe ens OSS oo: ec SOS OC aS ee4 BP eee SED oy SEER On SES CS ee ea eee i SS SeeESE eee Ce RS SeESS Seeae —“—™i—sO—s_C_CSSCS™sC—sCsCSsSCsCsC=sésC=«#*zT ee Dee Ft ER ee Fife SER SU Secon. ee SEER EO RE RRR SSRIS RSME “ES Sree Se Satie a SE ES Ce Rae oo ee ee NEN RSS 2 Eke Se es ECG ES SS as ae bog Se ee Dew ee lg RE SA CNN cas ASS Sree Se ee og Tet SSE Bees Sey es eee Banca Ae aS RO ee 34 Ee BREE ee ee ee ee ee SE SS REV SESEES ee eee os ESSE Se FREES Se Oe Se RSI Sco oo cee SE See Ps CRESS ee Rees Pao -..———“i“i‘“‘“‘“‘(‘ el| 3ee o ed ‘Sate Pe ‘= ee, i * a ee} 7 eect 72ae—— ™. S, i Wa B=nee Aeomer }freoaere Np en an 4 She 8Peers my Be ae WAT LIE, seen “of i FAK noe sateen VAY} ;PEM, — ee : ; i i . q cen ZESA OS oe . . ars on es re Mm Bio f a

1aey: ~:,rsfo o“4a7;a9| cndae Ht 9Broce) eee. Ae | ee: KO (7/7 , aal Pie i AOS gt, k q65 a So, atl By f } oe vai gi PS,

Byami rf -wr. me an ys~FBrow ALPest ESE a ey, - oo sf Me *,Me ‘rf mu go. ORL : aoe Z ——_— > a BO ™~ oe : i" sae “ie ego a ~~ u pes NBR Ap i WASS “ Bhs ‘ Ee ee . SgSet heieOY %, #8 g ae RAT Sa oua: . {EeA care LE ‘Ba . z- x, mt @ 2B .iA i H. yeed ff Ee KS iSPe Ly Fs SLE * 7 een oH . . a j , 7ie SOAs, Pele wire, ce a sn ae : Te EER OTH, 4 5 4 $+RS Bx: pie vA ee *» gene..Fee me nee fk peSn i te iyWEY ‘ dB BD 7RRS Lak; {Oe ind Seoo\Me egagae

a i ance a > “dP es TIC, eee BF ais? : Wo fees aT th (J am », * § Eh on : Pi # i : ) foe ae Ag b

- fiFR ;- gwe $ipX 4"i“se ‘faON, *‘s“y ‘ 3Me:3wo ~, Bae te, ,N A ile A veeee Bs an aie i Ai 3.fs“.. : 3a2EEE. eat oop ae OeBes : jiBe HEH *,FE:aMy Hy Ss,

} VW j EPP es ti0 °Eee 1een aN . \ .?aay il ee 3BLS ‘beh fio. Beg. vee: \ .. "os 3: . oN : :; me & Fa : 7 \ % % 7 Ss ; :: ee Ped ws, y Sy ov : . ¥i A ° ue ! NR \ . t ooo iz : ; : 7 :

Ae on | QM ees let i}Hoe ; inns ane tte \ ae . g NOS 4 ; AAPA OTS en ace on ‘ C7. | op PP. 83

| “NO THOROUGHFARE,” “Eye NC ROUGHFARE,” ag__ feaeg og:es

: %Chanstitutios, 4 Levee eSaa $8 hhc yveer 42 CUE i wypatil ts % allistatyee t %. 3 y¢ and sayytc £4 caret 4, ‘ go.no you,betting - ; “eae tyAssad - ’ : oA LosMelee ~ : 0. . .2oe The TP stands, Feuxwatt ahead then pos Pronk :

SUSTER ¢ ,:Se0He Seems to measbwell might as we: he a oe AUSTRALIA ght almost not almost have bought: thetedashed caroe at ali” a

46 oak | * wt NotT Thoroughfare 2, AT nd geLindsay : tT -. By Norman Bulletin, 20th April rary

IN THE SADDLE

extension of Commonwealth industrial powers to give reality to the “New Protection”, could be seen as the logical extensions of the common policy of 1904-8. On the other major national question, defence, all parties had virtually accepted Labor’s policy, and the Fusion Government had itself

gone some distance towards implementing it. On the question of State finances the two parties differed only on the question of whether the new arrangement should be enshrined in the Constitution or left to the discretion of future Parliaments. The only fresh proposals of importance were the land tax, for which Labor’s proposals had been before the country since Fisher’s Gympie speech of 1908, and which was linked with an active immigration policy, and the proposal for a Commonwealth note issue. The Commonwealth Bank, though it appeared in the Labor platform, was not mentioned in the policy speech. Though the leaders did not open their campaigns until February, electioneering was well under way by then. Largely because it

was for the first time a straight fight between two parties, public interest was keener than usual, and on election day, 13th April, the percentage voting had risen from just over 50 in 1906 to nearly 60, or, excluding uncontested electorates, to 62. In West Sydney the poll was 60 per cent, as against barely 50 per cent in the previous election. Hughes on this occasion was able to give only intermittent attention to his own electorate, much of his time being taken up in speaking for other Labor candidates in the suburbs, as well as in tours of the west, where he spoke on successive nights at Bathurst, Orange, and Parkes, and of the south-west, speaking at Goulburn and Junee. West Sydney, however, was not neglected, and towards the end of the campaign Hughes addressed as many as four meetings in one evening. In addition to electioneering proper, he was the main opponent in New South Wales of the referendum proposal on State finance. It was not inappropriately that one newspaper described him editorially as “that fiery particle”.® In West Sydney, though Hughes himself remained confident, there was

a lively contest and much speculation on the outcome. The Fusion had found a strong local candidate in S. L. Cole, a master carter with a good reputation as an employer, active in a variety of local organizations, and an alderman of Glebe for twelve years and mayor for the last three.? On the other flank, Hughes was also for the first time faced by a Socialist candidate, no less than H. E. Holland, who, though he had no chance of election, might well exploit the bitterness generated by the strike, especially among the coal-lumpers of Miller’s Point, to split the Labor vote sufficiently

to exclude Hughes, since voting was in those days on a simple “first past

the post” basis. The danger of this double threat was increased by the changing balance of population in the electorate, as warehouses occupied 8 §.M.H., 11th April 1910. 9D.T., 19th March 1910.

243 R

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

more of Hughes’s traditional stronghold in the central part of the electorate, while the population of Glebe, where he was less well known, was growing

and the northern end, around Miller’s Point, was dominated by the coallumpers rather than the wharf labourers. Hughes delivered the opening speech of his campaign in the Glebe Town Hall, and was entertained after the meeting by Cole as Mayor, on 15th February, when both his opponents had already been in the field for a fortnight. Replying to Deakin, he ridiculed the Fusion “policy”, claiming that the two main achievements for which their Government claimed credit,

defence and old-age pensions, had both been taken over by them from Labor. Hughes himself had originated their military policy, Watson their naval policy, and it was the Labor Party who, by threatening to withdraw their support, had forced Deakin to adopt the Surplus Revenue Act which made possible the old-age pensions. The proposed financial settlement with the States had also, Hughes claimed, been first suggested by the Federal Labor Conference at Brisbane in 1908. He personally thought 25s. a head too much, but would not oppose the agreement on that score. The only difference between the Fusion and the Labor Party was on making the proposals a permanent part of the Constitution, where they could not be altered by the people either as citizens of the State or as citizens of the Commonwealth. We are too heavily shackled [he declared] by the dead hand. There ought to be in every community in which Democracy makes any attempt to speak, power to make any laws the people wish. You yourselves are the State and the citizens of the State. ... You are accused of the basest and most despicable crimes. It is you who propose to rob the States: you are the people upon whose peaceful and honourable faces no traces of crime are to be found; you it is who are to rob yourselves and cheat yourselves in the near future. Was there anything so absurd or childish by which to attempt to gull the people!

The Labor Party believed in the new protection ... not in some roundabout way, and in the far future, but in the new protection of the Arbitration Court at the present time. It believed in fair and reasonable wages for all classes of labour, and in the Federal Arbitration Court as the best channel through which that could be brought about.

They believed, too, in the nationalization of monopolies, though not of other industries. Both of these, though Hughes did not stress the point in this speech, would require alteration of the Constitution, or at least of its current interpretation by the High Court. The central feature of Labor’s policy for the immediate future, however, was the promotion of immigration by means of the land tax, which would break up the large estates and so throw land open to agricultural settlement. On the land-tax proposals, as Hughes saw it, depended both immigration and defence. 244

IN THE SADDLE

There is only one way by which immigrants brought to the country can do any good to-day, and that is by creating new wealth. Accessions of population to our already congested cities are useless. If they can develop Australia they will be welcome, but there is one reason why we cannot develop this country as it should be developed, and that is because there is no country in the world where land monopoly is carried to the extent that it is here. The chief plank in the Labor party’s platform is to wipe out land monopoly by making it unprofitable for holders of great estates to hold land out of use.?°

To Hughes, the policy of land taxation was not a question of socialist doctrine, but a practical means to realize his twin aims of population and defence. By linking it with immigration policy, the latent suspicion of the working classes towards immigration could be overcome. For the rest of his campaign, land taxation was at the centre of Hughes’s policy; next came securing effective control by the Commonwealth of its own house; and finally denunciation of the Fusion. Between his opening speech and election day, Hughes addressed innumerable meetings both in suburban electorates and in the country, though

a breakdown in his health kept him from the platform for a week and forced him to cancel a tour of New England. The same themes recur, with the same emphasis on the Labor claim to the defence policy and on the land tax as the next major objective. In a brush with Holman in the columns of the Daily Telegraph he replied to the argument that land taxation should be left to the States: The question at issue is not which Parliament shall pass this tax, but rather when shall it be passed. That it must be done and done quickly is obvious. That the State Parliament does not propose to do it, or at any rate, has not done it, is equally strong. . . . Speaking for myself ...I do not care two straws who breaks down land monopoly... . I want to break down this monopoly not next century, or when the Legislative Council of New South Wales has become regenerated, or when some other miracles are performed, but I want to break it down now, because, if ever we did want people in this

country to defend it and develop it we want them now; and the only obstacle to their coming here is the land monopoly."

Later, at a rally in Martin Place, he claimed that 728 people owned the best part of the land in New South Wales.** The Fusion party, apart from its leaders, seems to have relied, in the absence of a clear policy, on a smear campaign. Hughes had to reply to charges that the Labor Party was irreligious—when he first joined the State Parliament “the place was littered with Sunday School teachers and superintendents who were members of the Labour Party’—and disloyal. They 10 §.M.H., and D.T., 16th February 1910. Quotations are from D.T. 11 P.T., 17th March 1910.

12 §.M.H., 4th April gro. 245

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

were also accused in some quarters of wanting to destroy the sanctity of the marriage tie and engage in reckless confiscation. Some of the papers, too, made a feature of Hughes’s house at Gore Hill and his farm on the Hawkesbury, suggesting that his concern for the working man was mere hypocrisy. For the most part, Hughes ignored these personal attacks, and wherever he spoke confined himself to national themes, virtually ignoring his direct opponents, except immediately before the election, when, in four meetings in different parts of the electorate on one evening he recapitulated his political career and made an onslaught on Holland’s vote-splitting tactics.

Apart from this, he left the local issues of the West Sydney campaign to his supporters. Cole, in spite of attempts of the Press to build him up as a possible winner, proved a thoroughly dull, if respectably aldermanic, candidate. His main theme was the charge that Labor was unificationist and would, if successful, abolish the State Parliaments..* He may have hoped by this argument to attract some States-righters of the Holman school

from Hughes’s support, leaving it to Holland to attract sufhcient voters from the left wing to give him a victory. For Holland, on the other hand, the contest was a grudge fight. He had

no chance of winning: his only object was to stage a demonstration for extreme socialism against Hughes and the Labor Party. His campaign, sponsored by the International Socialist Party, consisted of attacks on the political Labor Party as “bourgeois politicians” and enemies of the working classes, as indicated especially by their support of compulsory arbitration and compulsory military training (“compulsory militarism”), and especially

of personal abuse of Hughes and his record from his first clash with Holland on the Newcastle waterfront in 1900 up to his handling of the recent strike. One handbill was headed “W. M. HUGHES: His record. Blackleg. Traitor. Sweater.’—and it proceeded to elaborate each heading at some length, the last charge being based principally on an allegation that he

had offered two students of Hawkesbury Agricultural College 25s. per week, without rations, to run his Hawkesbury farm, working a seven-day week from 3 a.m. to 8.30 p.m., an offer which the young men had very properly rejected.*®

Holland got off to a good start with a meeting addressed by Peter Bowling the night before he went to jail, which was followed up by the dodger with a cartoon of Bowling in prison dress described earlier.1® Once the immediate excitement over the strike had subsided, however, he seems 13 §.M.H., 4th and 1st April 1910; Bulletin, 5th May 1910, 16, and 7th April 1910, 7. 14 §.M.H., 28th January 1910.

15 Handbills and pamphlets in ‘Socialism: handbills, pamphlets, press cuttings etc.”,

Mitchell Library: Q335. 9/S. 16 §.M.H., 27th January 1910; supra, ch. xiii.

246

IN THE SADDLE

to have aroused little interest. One meeting at Miller’s Point was described as “An Orderly Congregation”: “One might have supposed that a religious ceremony was being conducted. ... As a lively meeting it was an insult to the locality in which it was held.”*" Next day Hughes was supported by David Watson, a delegate from the

northern coal-miners. By the eve of the poll opposition to Hughes had virtually collapsed; when he finally turned to his own defence he was able to win a unanimous vote of confidence at a large meeting within a hundred yards of the faithful remnant being addressed by Holland.’® As the Herald had earlier remarked: “...a very large section of the working men of West Sydney call Mr Hughes nasty names when outside, but when he gets them together in meeting assembled they become spellbound under the influence of his oratory, and vote solidly at his dictation.”’® Hughes’s tactics in keeping to the national level and leaving his personal defence to others or to silence were fully justified by the results. In West

Sydney, Holland, who had at one stage been credited with a potential 1,500 votes—almost exactly the number of Hughes’s majority at the last election—actually polled only 628 (not quite double the informal votes), while Hughes himself, in a greatly increased poll, gained a clear majority of 7,386 over his two opponents combined: almost as many as his total in 1906. The votes of Cole and Holland combined failed to reach the number previously polled for Burns. West Sydney had impressively demonstrated its confidence.

In the country as a whole, Labor surpassed its most optimistic expectations. Fisher, passing through Sydney at the end of March, had prophesied that Labor would gain from ten to twelve seats in the House of Represen-

tatives and that they might make a “slight gain” in the Senate. Hughes, nearer polling day, had modestly given them “about an even chance”.?° When the count was complete, they were found to have gained 14 seats in the Representatives, giving them 41 to 31 Fusion and 3 Independent members. In the Senate, Labor won all 18 vacant seats, giving them 22 members

against 14. Never before had such a landslide been seen. Even Deakin himself barely held Ballarat, with a majority of 443. Among the accessions to the Labor benches were J. H. Scullin, Frank Anstey, Frank Brennan, and Mathew Charlton, as well as two other future Ministers, W. O. Archibald and J. E. Fenton. As soon as the count was complete, Deakin, anxious for personal reasons to leave office, tendered his resignation and on 29th April the new Government, led by Fisher, was sworn in. Once again Caucus chose the Cabinet. 17 P.T., 1st April 1910. 18 §.M.H., 13th April 1910. 19 §.M.H., 14th March 1910. 20 D.T., 29th March 1910; S.M.H., 9th April 1910.

247

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

There was only one change, the substitution of King O’Malley for Hugh Mahon. Mahon, aloof and intellectual, had never been particularly popular, while the exuberant O’Malley, determined to reach Cabinet and to press his proposals for a Commonwealth Bank, had set himself to court popularity in the Caucus by acting as unofficial banker to his less prosperous colleagues. Fisher, to whom, as to Hughes, O’Malley’s inclusion was thoroughly distasteful, allotted him Mahon’s portfolio of Home Affairs, leaving the other posts unchanged and himself again taking the Treasury. The second Fisher Government held office during a period of great and increasing prosperity. The country had at last recovered from the financial

depression of the nineties and the drought years at the beginning of the new century, and entered on a period of growth and optimism such as it had not known since the 1880s. During the three years of Labor rule the population grew from 4,323,960 to 4,733,359, increasing at a rate that reached

3°5 per cent in 1912, much of this being due to a renewed flow of immi-

gration from Great Britain, which for the first time exceeded the rate reached in 1881-5.°* At the same time the gross national product, estimated

at £m202'1 at the beginning of the Commonwealth, rose from {£m329'1 to £m371, passing {m4 in 1913. This growth, while distributed over all sectors of the economy, was especially marked in manufacturing and construction.”* It was also a time of rapid technological changes, especially in communications, the potential significance of which to Australia Hughes was quick to grasp. The motor-car was becoming established—one of the early acts of the new Ministry was to buy one for official use.”* The first taxi-cabs were appearing on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne.** The aeroplane was still very much in the experimental stage, but was beginning to take a practical shape—the first flight with passengers in Australia was in 1g11.°° The telephone was becoming widespread, and one of the prob-

; 25 : .

lems the new Government had to deal with was the installation of automatic exchanges.-° Marconi had shown how messages could be transmitted from the shore to ships at sea over considerable distances, and both his own company and a German rival were rapidly developing new applications of

his discoveries.?* Australia was still remote from the old world, but her isolation was soon to be broken down. Such conditions favoured a strong “1 Commonwealth Year Book, VII (1901-13), 88, 102.

“2T am indebted for these figures to a table prepared by Professor Noel Butlin, of the Institute of Advanced Studies, the Australian National University. 23 Argus, 11th June 1910. It was a 4-cylinder Renault, fitted with a “special colonial model

torpedo body painted in myrtle-green, picked out with fine red lines”, capable of 50 m.p.h. and costing £850. 24 Cf. §.M.H., 23rd February 1909.

25 Argus, 3rd March 1911: the passengers were J. Baillieu and W. J. Knox. The first demonstration of engine-powered flight in Australia had been in Sydney on 9th December 1909. 26 File, Postmaster-General’s Department: Automatic Switchings (Hughes Papers, 1912). 27 “Wireless” file, 1910-22 (Hughes Papers).

248

IN THE SADDLE

national sentiment. They were, perhaps, less favourable to radical social change.

Viewed in this light, the achievement of the Government was by no means negligible. In terms of legislation, the fourth Parliament was the most productive to date, with 41 Acts of a substantially new character to its credit.*® Much of its work was a completion or extension of the broad work

of national construction initiated under Barton and carried on under Deakin, which the Labor Government continued, sometimes with a special Labor twist in detail, but generally on the lines initiated by their predecessors. Thus they were responsible for taking over the Northern Territory and inaugurating Commonwealth administration there, for taking over the Federal Capital Territory and commencing work on the site, and for the competition that determined the plan of the city, for commencing work on

the railway to link Western Australia with the eastern States, and for introducing uniform penny postage throughout the Commonwealth, with

uniform Commonwealth postage stamps in place of the several State stamps that had continued in use up till then. In defence, too, Labor brought rather more into line with its own thinking the measures the Fusion had introduced, for which, as we have seen, it already claimed credit. During its term of office the reports of Lord Kitchener and Admiral Henderson were received, the first warships of the Australian Navy were completed and delivered, the Royal Military College was established at Duntroon, and universal compulsory training for males from 14 to 25 years of age was brought into operation. About all these there was perhaps little

that was distinctively “Labor”, but they made collectively a substantial contribution to Australia’s nationhood. Nor should we forget the truism enunciated by Hughes to the electors of West Sydney: “. . . administration is the chief side of legislation. It is not sufficient to make laws; you must have good administration of those laws.”*? Of more obvious concern to Labor were the Maternity Allowances Act

(“baby bonus”), a substantially amended Arbitration Act, Acts providing compensation for seamen and for Commonwealth employees injured at work, and a Navigation Act embodying the results of Hughes’s earlier work, which, however, was reserved for the royal assent and finally disallowed. These, too, were in continuation of policies already broadly accepted.

More novel, and certainly at the time more controversial, were some of the financial proposals of the new Government. The session of 1910 saw the

Land Tax Act, providing for taxation on a sliding scale of estates over £5,000, and the Commonwealth Notes Act, under which the national Government took over from the private banks the issue of paper money. 28 Sawer, gI. 29 §.M.H., 16th March 1910.

249

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

The former, which, as we have seen, had been strongly advocated by Hughes, involved the setting up of a complex administrative machine. Its effect in making land available for closer settlement may have been less than its supporters hoped, but it was certainly effective in breaking up a number of large city properties and so checking the growth of a system of

urban landlordism like that of London. It was also to prove a valuable source of revenue. The Commonwealth Notes Act, modelled on legislation that had been in force in Queensland since the early nineties, seems to us now mere machinery, and was in fact inspired more by the needs of the

Government for cheap finance than by any socialist dogma; a similar measure had in fact been mooted by so conservative a Treasurer as Sir John

Forrest in 1907 and again in 1gog. Nevertheless, there was considerable

mistrust of the measure as coming from Labor, and the public were warned that “Fisher’s flimsies” would quickly become worthless, though the banks accepted the inevitable with a good grace and co-operated to get the notes accepted.

More important, and even more controversial, was the establishment of

the Commonwealth Bank in 1911. This was a measure for which King O’Malley had long constituted himself the chief propagandist, and which he hoped to shape according to his own pattern. There is, however, no truth in

the story which he put about in later years and which has gained general circulation that he was alone in Cabinet in his advocacy of the bank, and that only by pressure from the rank and file “torpedo brigade” expressed through a narrow and dubious majority in Caucus did he succeed in forcing Fisher and Hughes into reluctant action. In fact, a government-owned bank

had been part of Labor’s policy since the party’s earliest days. Hughes had placed it on his list of priorities for the Commonwealth in the Bulletin interview of February rgor. Since 1902, the establishment of such a bank had formed part of the Federal general platform; in 1908 it had been raised to the “fighting platform”. What difference there was between O’Malley and his colleagues concerned not the establishment of the bank, but the nature and timing of the proposals, and especially, we may suspect, the

auspices under which they were to be introduced. Fisher, with the majority of his Cabinet, preferred to proceed one step at a time, securing acceptance of the note issue before proceeding to the larger measure of the

bank. Nor was he prepared to take O'Malley at his own estimate as a banking expert: he preferred more orthodox, if less exciting, advisers. The Bank, as envisaged by Fisher and Hughes, was to be, like the note issue,

| an aid to government finance by giving access to capital for the growing needs of the Commonwealth without going on the loan market, and an essay in state ownership of an essential facility, of the kind Hughes had consistently advocated, rather than an instrument of financial revolution. 250

IN THE SADDLE

Nor were either Fisher or Hughes disposed to let O'Malley claim all the credit.

The Bill to establish the Bank was drafted, on Fisher’s instructions, by G. T. Allen, a professional civil servant who after Federation had been transferred from the Victorian Treasury to become first permanent head of the Commonwealth Treasury, and the result, compared to O’Malley’s

dream child, was a model of cautious orthodoxy. The part that roused most controversy was the inclusion of a savings bank department to operate through the post offices in competition with the savings banks of the States, some of which had so far been allowed to continue to use the post offices. This was clearly designed to help meet the capital needs of the Common-

wealth. O’Malley retired to sulk. He took no part at all in the debates on the Bill, the brunt of which was borne by Fisher and Hughes, and in later years, especially after 1916, he conducted a bitter and persistent campaign to denigrate Hughes in particular, and to rewrite the history of the Bank with himself in the founder’s role.°° In all the achievements of these three years Hughes played a very large part. As Attorney-General, he was concerned not with a single department, but with the policy and administration of the Government as a whole. As chief legal adviser to the Government, the Attorney-General is closely concerned with every aspect of its policy, and even with the administration of all its departments. He is responsible for the drafting of every Bill submitted by the Government and for advising on regulations made under the Acts; for ensuring that the policy of the Government is carried out in the best way in relation to the existing law and the Constitution; and for advising his colleagues and departmental heads on every kind of point in which a legal question is raised... . In the giving of opinions and the conduct of litigation involving constitutional issues, his work is constant and of vital importance to the Government.*?

This was even more true in the case of the Fisher Government than of its non-Labor predecessors. Its members were relatively inexperienced in affairs either of government or of business, and, except Hughes, none of them had

any legal training. Their policy involved an extension of Commonwealth activities in many fields, with consequent practical problems, and they were committed to a view of their constitutional limitations that ran counter to the views of a majority of the High Court bench. In these circumstances the 80 The best account of the founding of the Commonwealth Bank to date is that of S. J. Butlin, Australia and New Zealand Bank (London, 1961), 349. O’Malley’s version was given currency by L. C. Jauncey, Australia’s Government Bank (London, 1933), 56-9, repeated most recently in Catts, King O’Malley, 171-3. Cf. W. Maloney to L. C. Jauncey, 25th January 1933

(copy in King O’Malley Papers, “Letters to Jauncey”, 460/1). The article ‘The Labor Party and the origin of the Commonwealth Bank” by K. E. Beazley (4.].P.H. IX, i (May 1963)), which finally disposes of O’Malley’s claims, appeared after the above was in print. 31 Nation Building, 57.

251

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Government might easily have foundered before its work was well begun, courting frustration with legislation beyond its powers or dissipating its energies in a head-on collision with the Court, which would have played into the hands of the Opposition. That it did none of these things, that of all its Acts hardly any were invalidated, was due more than anything else to the sagacity and patience of Hughes. True, he did not stand alone. On constitutional issues and general matters of drafting and administration he

was well served by Robert Garran, who as Secretary to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department since Federation, no less than as one of Barton’s principal aides before it, had added to natural capacity and wisdom an unrivalled practical knowledge. In the business side of the department’s work, growing rapidly, especially with the expansion of the post office, and

in the routine preparation of litigation, he was supported by Charles Powers, who as Crown Solicitor had brought to the Commonwealth since 1903 the experience of many years in Queensland politics and in the Public Service of that State. But while his officials could advise and execute, the responsibility, and especially the responsibility for translating the advice into political terms, rested with Hughes and with Hughes alone.

Even if his official post had not put him at the centre of the Government’s policy and day-to-day tactics, Hughes would still have had a major share of responsibility for them. He was deputy leader, and during the absences of Fisher in South Africa from October to December 1g10 and at the Imperial Conference from April to August 1911 he was acting Prime Minister. For Fisher, with his naive pleasure in the trappings of office and his stolid gift for human relations, Hughes had come to entertain, in private, a kind of amused tolerance, only occasionally tinged with irritation. This attitude is typified by the anecdote of Hughes’s first visit to the large and rambling old house standing in extensive but neglected grounds on the outskirts of Melbourne, which Fisher had lately purchased and of which he was inordinately proud. Hughes was duly shown around, and as he was leaving, solemnly produced a pocket compass, much to the astonishment of his host. “Ah yes,” said Hughes, “I bought this on the way out. I thought I might need it, you know.”*?

Fisher, on his side, had come to lean heavily on his energetic and ingenious lieutenant, who seemed content to do any amount of work without

challenging his leadership. Holman was no doubt exaggerating, but not without some foundation, when he wrote: “Fisher had begun already to be, what he always remained, a conscientious and manageable puppet in the hands of abler men than himself. The leading mind in the new Government was that of Mr Hughes.”** Of his other colleagues, the only one with whom 32 Told by M. Shepherd to Miss M. Steven, 1956.

33 W. A. Holman, “Six Years of Labor Government”, 19 (typescript in Hughes Papers). A slightly different version is quoted by Evatt, 263. 252

IN THE SADDLE

Hughes seems to have been on terms of personal intimacy was Batchelor. From the rest, he kept more or less aloof, though with experience he learnt

to manage them better, so that C. E. Frazer, a junior member of the Cabinet, wrote to Fisher in 1911: “I am pleased to be able to say that I have got along with W.M.H. very much better this time than when you were in Africa. In fact outside of an occasional burst from the ‘King’ that made us all a bit anxious, we have gone along very well.”** He appears, too,

in King O’Malley’s diary as a fairly frequent Sunday visitor before his second marriage, though there was neither liking nor trust between the two men. Since much of Hughes’s work was done in Cabinet and Caucus, it 1s impossible to trace it in detail. He took a very active part in the shaping of the Land Tax Bill and, as we have seen, helped to bring the plan for the

Commonwealth Bank down to earth. In the House, he spoke on every measure brought forward by the Government, usually at length and often on several occasions, as well as directing the debates in Committee. Fisher played his part presenting and expounding the financial measures of the Government, but even on these, outside his normal range though they were, it was generally Hughes who launched the darts that put the Opposition to rout.

These years of office saw a radical change in the pattern of Hughes’s domestic life. Since his wife’s death he had been leading a rackety, hand-to-

mouth kind of life, filled with almost frantic activity, with neither time nor, perhaps, inclination for regular social life. His work brought him into contact with all sorts and conditions of men, but, since Watson’s retirement, Batchelor was perhaps the only one of his associates with whom he was on

intimate terms. It is hardly surprising that his health was giving him increasing trouble—not only during the election but several times afterwards he had to withdraw entirely for a week or so to recuperate, and the danger of complete breakdown was never far off. Now, as Attorney-General

and acting Prime Minister, Hughes was brought into a new world, the world of Government House levées and state banquets. After an early brush with Lord Dudley, the Governor-General, perhaps over-sensitive to suspected slights from his Labor Ministers, over the failure of Ministers to attend a levée, Hughes did not, like some of his colleagues, find this world uncongenial, and his wit and skill as a raconteur brought him into some demand.

Some traces of the old Bohemian life still pursued him. A Melbourne landlady brought an action in the County Court for damage to her furniture in a house Hughes had occupied for three months five years before, in 1904.

The damage was mostly of the kind not unusual with a large family of 34 C, E. Frazer to Fisher, 19th July 1911 (Fisher Papers).

253

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

ill-controlled children in rented lodgings, and in the event the case was dismissed with costs in Hughes’s favour.*° A more serious affair was “the Battle of Wilberforce”, which became a legend and about which questions were asked in Parliament. This concerned

Hughes’s farm at Wilberforce on the Hawkesbury, a seventy-five acre property on the river flats of Freeman’s Reach, near Windsor, where he could escape from his activities in Sydney and work off his surplus physical

energy at week-ends. When he took the lease is uncertain: at any rate he was in possession in 1907, when he cleared three shillings and sevenpence on the Sydney market for twenty cases of choice tomatoes, and became disillusioned about commission agents. At first he installed a member of the

Trolley, Draymen and Carters’ Union named Wood to run the place for him as a dairy, bought cows, put in an irrigation plant (then thought very advanced), and generally, even if he made no profits, enjoyed himself greatly.°°

Early in 1909 Wood left to take over a farm of his own, and in May, as the result of an advertisement, Hughes engaged one Richard Bellenger, who had ten children, as a share-farmer, Hughes to provide plant and stock and

to pay Bellenger £2 10s. a week for three months while the place, which had become somewhat neglected, was put back in order. Hughes soon became dissatisfied with Bellenger’s farming. According to Bellenger, the place was in shocking condition and “somebody had taken advantage of Mr Hughes’s inexperience, and rung in on him the oldest cows in the district”. According to Hughes, Bellenger was incompetent and slovenly. At Hughes’s second visit after Bellenger took over, on 12th July, there was an argument in which Bellenger tried to blackmail Hughes over his use of oficial stamps and Hughes gave him notice. Next Monday, roth July, Hughes returned with his son, Arthur, and another man and the local police sergeant. They found Bellenger ploughing and Hughes ordered him off the property, but he refused to leave, claiming that he was a partner, not an employee. Hughes withdrew, leaving Arthur and the other man “in possession” and engaging a local man to take charge of the stock. A week later he returned with reinforcements from the Carters’ Union and several neighbours, armed with iron bars, billets of wood, and other weapons— tradition speaks of steel rabbit-traps swung by the chain, but these were not mentioned in the evidence—to be opposed by Bellenger, two of his sons, and two farm lads similarly equipped with Indian clubs, ironbark saplings, and an axe-handle. A lively skirmish ensued, during which Hughes’s head was cut open, but in the end Bellenger, heavily outnumbered, was ejected and his furniture thrown into the road. In the action which he subsequently 39 Argus, 3rd May; 2nd August rgto. 36 “The Case for Labor”, D.T., 6th March 1909; Crusts and Crusades, 215-20.

254

IN THE SADDLE

brought in the Supreme Court for assault and breach of contract, Bellenger claimed that he had been dragged into the street by five men who, “applying some very painful twists and grips”, sat on him for three hours, that one son was knocked unconscious and that his wife was forcibly locked in the

house while the furniture was removed. Hughes, for whom B. R. Wise, K.C., appeared, denied assault and claimed to have acted in self-defence. He had used no more force than was necessary to remove Bellenger, who was trespassing, from his property. In fact, he had “gently laid his hand on the man in order to remove him” when Bellenger bit his arm, while one of the carters was knocked out by the son. The jury was out for five hours, but eventually, the parties agreeing to accept a majority verdict, found for Bellenger, awarding him £100 for breach of contract, £150 for the assault, and {£5 for wages. An appeal by Hughes to the Full Court was rejected. Two years later Bellenger threatened an action against Hughes for illegal use of O.S. stamps which seems to have been settled out of court through the intermediary of Dan Green, once P. J. Crick’s confidential clerk and then a well-known Trades Hall “fixer”. Subsidiary litigation concerning the assaults on Mrs Bellenger and the son dragged on from one adjournment to another in the Windsor District Court until 1913, when it, too, was settled.3” Meanwhile Hughes gave up his lease and the farm was sold.

At first, as his social obligations grew, Hughes brought his eldest daughter Ethel, just out of her teens, to Melbourne to act as hostess. Soon,

however, a new marriage was to bring him at last enduring domestic stability and a background suited to his newly won position. In November

tg10 we find Lord Dudley’s aide-de-camp writing of a dinner for the Ministry: “I did not ask Miss Hughes as you told me she was not old enough for Dinner parties, but of course Their Excellencies will be delighted

to invite Miss Campbell if you wish it.”*° On Monday, 26th June io11, a public holiday, he took time off from his duties as acting Prime Minister and was married, at Christ Church, South Yarra, very quietly, without the knowledge of any of his colleagues or of the Press, to Mary Campbell, second daughter of Thomas Campbell, a grazier of Burrangong in central New South Wales.*? It was entirely characteristic that in lieu of a honeymoon he should have spent his wedding afternoon motoring in the country 37 There is a very full and lively report of the main action in the Windsor and Richmond Gazette, 1oth June 1911; more briefly, D.T., 2nd-3rd June 1911; Argus, 20th September 1910, 2nd, 3rd, 6th June 1911. For the appeal, W. and R.G., 5th August 1911, Argus, 28th July roi. Newspaper reports of the trial are reprinted in T. W. McCristal, Sensational Exposure of W. M.

Hughes, P.C., Prime Minister of Australia: the Windsor Eviction . . . Read the Startling Evidence! (Sydney, 1923). The subsidiary litigation is referred to in W. and R.G., and November 1912 and 4th October 1913 (there was only one sitting of the District Court at Windsor each year). On the O.S. stamps and Dan Green, correspondence in the Hughes Papers, 15th March-15th May 1913; on Green, J. T. Lang, I Remember (Sydney, 1956), 59. For a version of the oral tradition, Thompson, 81-2 (Frank Green). 38 R. Nevill to W. M. Hughes, 16th November 1910 (Hughes Papers). 39 D.T., 28th June 1911. King O’Malley’s Diary notes the date.

259

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

near Melbourne with his daughter and his new wife, and that while “the car was being sent along a badly-made country road at a fairly high speed” it should have struck a rut and thrown him hard against the door. Ethel was badly shaken, and Hughes was struck over the heart, but recovered sufficiently to finish the drive. Next day he was back at work, though some days later he was found to have broken a rib.*” Motor-cars had an irresistible attraction for Hughes all his life, and his driving was always a terror to all who saw it.

Fisher, on his way back from England, received the news from a colleague in the cabinet: “Little Billy went and got married the other day, a la King O’Malley. He was unable, however, to keep it a secret as long as the King.”**

Dame Mary, as she was to become, provided for the rest of his life the perfect domestic background for Hughes. Her interests and abilities were not political or intellectual, but her social gifts, tact and management, and

her unfailing patience provided precisely the featherbedding that her husband’s restless activity and frail physique required. If his tantrums and verbal pyrotechnics sometimes embarrassed strangers, they spent themselves harmlessly on Dame Mary’s good nature, and she provided the material comfort and peaceful atmosphere that had hitherto been unknown to him. Henceforth Hughes increasingly cut himself off from his older associations, and even from his first family, as he settled firmly into the social life Mary Hughes built around him.

40 Herald (Melbourne), 28th June 1911; D.T., 7th July ror. 41C. E. Frazer to A. Fisher, 19th July 1911 (Fisher Papers). 256

CHAPTER XV

The Jibbing Horse OR ALL THE real achievement, national and personal, of this period, it

+ has in retrospect a certain aura of frustration. This is due to the limits

set by the Constitution, as then interpreted, to the powers of the

Commonwealth to carry out certain important sections of the policy of the Government, and to the unsuccessful attempts to overcome these limits. In these attempts Hughes, both in his official capacity as Attorney-General and because of his personal interest, was the leading figure.

The three original judges of the High Court, Sir Samuel Griffith, Sir Edmund Barton, and Mr Justice O’Connor, were all closely involved in the drafting of the Constitution, Grifhth in 1891 and Barton and O’Connor in 1897-8, and were all deeply committed to the compromise with the States and the doctrine of the balance of powers which it embodied. All three, Grifhth from advancing age and seventeen years as Chief Justice, first of

Queensland and then of the Commonwealth, Barton and O’Connor by temperament, were conservative in their leanings. For some years before 1g10 they had been working out the doctrine of “implied prohibitions” in such a way as to frustrate a number even of the measures on which the

Deakin liberals and the Labor Party had been agreed, and to make extremely uncertain the power of the Commonwealth to intervene in a wide field of industrial and commercial matters which were certainly of national concern. The appointment of Isaacs and Higgins to the bench in 1906 had brought a more liberal interpretation into dissenting judgments without affecting the final verdicts. In particular, the basis of the “new protection” had been destroyed in Barger’s case, the power to legislate with

respect to corporations had been so limited as to deprive it of any real substance, and the power to control monopolies and trusts, though it had not yet been tested, was extremely doubtful. In arbitration, too, Higgins, who had been President of the Commonwealth Court since 1907, as well as other observers, was coming to feel that the line of narrowly legalistic defin-

ition which the High Court was inclined to take would seriously restrict the usefulness of the Commonwealth Court.’ 1Qn Barger’s case (6 C.L.R., 41 ff.) see Nation Building, 66-70. On corporations, Huddart Parker & Co. v. Moorehead (8 C.L.R., 330). The restrictive line on arbitration appears in various ways in Clancy v. Butchers’ Shop Employés Union (1 C.L.R., 181), Master Retailers’ Association of New South Wales v. The Shop Assistants Union of New South Wales

257

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

The Labor Party was well aware of the difficulties that the Court’s prevailing line of interpretation put in the way of their policies, and indeed one of the reasons for the breach between them and Deakin was the latter’s reluctance to press for constitutional amendment when his policies were emasculated by the Court. They lacked the reverence of the other parties for the Constitution, in whose making they had had no part, of the form of which they had always been suspicious, and which in fact many of them, including Hughes, had opposed. The Federal Labor Conference of 1908

had accepted, in spite of Holman, the need for amendment “to ensure effective Federal legislation for New Protection and Arbitration” and to allow nationalization of monopolies.” In the election campaign of 1910 Hughes and others had given the need for amendment a prominent place. The first step, then, now that the party had gained power, was to seek

the requisite amendments by an appeal to the people, and this Hughes proceeded to do, towards the end of the first session, by the introduction of two Bills. The first, the Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) Bill, combined four proposals. As finally submitted to the electors, it sought to omit the limiting words “with other countries, and among the States” from the trade and commerce power, leaving the Commonwealth unrestricted power; to give a very wide power of regulation and control over corporations, whether formed under the law of a State or foreign, but excluding non-profit-making corporations for religious, charitable, scientific or artistic purposes; to substitute for the arbitration power a general power over labour and employment, including:

(a) the wages and conditions of labour and employment in any trade, industry or calling; and (b) the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, including disputes in relation to employment on or about railways the property of any State;

and finally to add a new power to legislate on “Combinations and monopo-

lies in relation to the production, manufacture, or supply of goods and services’.

The second Bill, to be submitted at the same time, sought power to make laws for carrying on by the Commonwealth of any industry or busiand others (2 C.L.R., 94), Trolly, Draymen and Carters Union of Sydney and Suburbs v. Master Carriers Association of New South Wales (2 C.L.R., 509), Jumbunna Coal Mine v. Victorian Coal Miners Association (6 C.L.R., 309), and Federated Saw Mill, Timber Yard, and General Woodworkers Employés Association v. James Moore & Sons (8 C.L.R., 465). These

cases, the first three of which relate to the New South Wales Court. suggest rather than actually impose restrictions. The first of the line of cases formally setting limits on the Federal Court, Australian Boot Trade Employés Federation v. Whybrow & Co. and others (10 C.L.R.,

266) was decided in March 1910 during the election campaign. For Higgins’s attitude, cf. Palmer, 200-6. 2 A.L.P. Fourth Commonwealth Political Labor Conference, Brisbane, 1908; Crisp, 232-3; Evatt, 220-2.

258

THE JIBBING HORSE

ness which had been declared by resolution of both Houses of Parliament to be a monopoly, and for acquiring on just terms any property used in connection with it. This was certainly a bold attempt to cut through the difficulty. It went far beyond the somewhat cautious resolution of the Brisbane Conference,

and even to some sympathetic critics seemed to throw out the baby of federalism with the bathwater of undue obstruction. To Holman and his supporters in New South Wales, about to take office, the proposals were anathema.

The speech in which Hughes defended them on the second reading of the first Bill was generally recognized as one of his best to that date. So far his reputation in debate had been for brilliant skirmishing, for devastating personalities and flashing wit. He had been, as P. M. Glynn described him earlier in this session, “one who is remarkable for his elusiveness, if not versatility, in debate, and who sometimes may instruct, often astounds, seldom convinces, but can always retain the attention of the audience by amusing them”.’ Now, in a speech which lasted two hours, he offered a serious, reasoned, and sustained argument on his view of federation. Federation, he argued, did not depend on which particular powers were allotted to one side or the other, but on their clear demarcation, so that each

government had full control of its own sphere. Nor did it require a tribunal to hold the balance; Switzerland and Germany did without, and were still true federations. Stability in a Constitution is one thing; rigidity quite another. We do not want to be swept hither and thither by every passing wave of public feeling. There must be something fixed and definite in a Federal form of government to which the two parties to the compact can cling. The very essence of true progress is that it should be tempered by wise Conservatism. But any form

of government which, in order to prevent too rapid changes, prevents all changes is clearly quite incompatible with democratic government.

The dangers of excessive rigidity were illustrated by the experience of America, where it had caused the Civil War and now made it impossible to deal with the great trusts. These dangers the framers of the Australian Constitution had sought to avoid by making it, by comparison, easier to

amend. “The idea, which has of late become very prevalent in certain quarters, that the Constitution is sacrosanct, and must not be touched, is one not essential to the Federal system.” The final arbiter should be the people:

I know of no rule of government or politics more in conformity with Democracy than this—that if the elect of the people declare a law to be good, 3C.P.D., LVI, 2236 (30th August Ig10). 259 S

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

subject to reference to the people, and the people themselves, after a prescribed interval, express a matured approval, it is sufficient to establish constitutionality.

The present proposals did not aim at unification, but only at making the

national Government “supreme in its own sphere, and clothed with full power to legislate upon every part of all the matters already enumerated in

section 51 of the Constitution”. This was at present far from being the case. Already Parliament seemed to have reached its limits: We see in section 51 of the Constitution that imposing array of powers

with which we are clothed. . . . But when we exempt from them the powers which we have already practically exhausted by existing Commonwealth legislation—when we take away our powers with respect to Customs

taxation and defence—we may well ask “What is left?” So far as mere phraseology, language and reiteration are concerned, there is much; so far as actualities are concerned, in the light of the decisions of the High Court and of our experience, we find there is little or nothing that is of national or vital

moment....

We do not claim all the powers that are now exercised by the States, but

what we have a right to claim is that everything that is in the true sense national should be exercised by this Legislature. In particular, we have a right to claim that we should be permitted to exercise in reality the powers which we thought we possessed to the full when we entered Federation, but which experience and the decisions of the High Court have shown that we do not possess.

Turning to the individual amendments proposed, he demonstrated at some length the confusions and contradictions created by attempts to divide commerce into two compartments, according to whether it remained within or went outside the borders of a State. The nature of commerce had changed radically since the writing of the American Constitution, whose provisions had been followed in the Australian. It was essential that the national Government should have unfettered and unambiguous control: The commerce power is essentially a national one, for it concerns vitally the welfare of every human being in the community. Those who control trade and commerce control those who have to live by it... . In the interests of the nation, of Democracy, and of Federation itself, it is necessary that we should be clothed, in unambiguous words, with the whole control of the trade and commerce power.

As to corporations, it had been found that the power to deal with corporations “did not mean what it said”, and that in effect the power was limited to corporations before they commenced operations, and did not extend to the operations themselves. The result was: “We may not deal with corporations; the States cannot deal with them. Are we then to sit 260

THE JIBBING HORSE

down impotently and do nothing in face of the greatest menace of modern days?”

One of the main causes of the rising cost of living and of the recent industrial unrest was the operation of the great trusts and combines. All parties agreed on the need to control them, and Hughes read a memorandum

by his predecessor in the Fusion Government, P. M. Glynn, arguing that they could not, as things stood, be controlled effectively. The power proposed was not a new power, but was designed only to restore what it had been thought was given by the Constitution. Industrial matters, too, could only be effectively regulated on a national basis:

The industrial question is in its essence national, although it has phases

peculiar to localities, districts, and States. There must be one supreme authority in order to secure industrial peace. We cannot deal with the industrial question like mites burrowing and hiding themselves in the recesses of a cheese.

The Labor Party had always favoured this view, and had thought it secured with Federation. The powers asked for, over trade, commerce, industries and monopolies, were all interconnected; “without power over all we have not full power over any”. They are but “four phases of the same question. ... They are like the four sides of a rectangular block.” Of these powers, that concerning industry had been progressively whittled away by successive High Court judgments until Mr Justice Higgins had been moved to his famous protest, which Hughes quoted: At present, the approach to the Court is through a veritable Serbonian bog of technicalities; and the bog is extending. After full consideration, I must state it as my opinion that these decisions as to the limits of the Court’s power, with all the corollaries which they involve, will make it impracticable to frame awards that will work—will entail, indeed, a gradual paralysis of the functions of the Court.

Finally, Hughes dealt briefly with the second Bill on monopolies. He did not object to combines as such any more than to individuals as such: I do not care whether it is a combine or an individual that oppresses me. I am only advocating a special method of dealing with combines or monopolies, just as a man advocates a special way of dealing with a particularly powerful person. .. . We cannot tolerate the existence of any private corporation, combine, or trust which fixes, by arrangement amongst its members, the prices of commodities which are in general consumption.

This was not a question of socialism: monopoly was the antithesis of free competition, and only where competition had ceased to exist did the Government seek power to step in. Without this power it would be useless 261

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

to regulate wages, for the combine would nullify any increase by adding it to their prices. The powers sought would not exclude State legislation, but

would enable the Commonwealth to step in where the States might be unable or unwilling to act. The peroration was a ringing appeal to national pride: Federation has inaugurated a new era in the political destinies of Aust-

ralia. It has taught us to “lisp” in national “numbers”. Provincialism is dying, and dying hard. We forget that we are New South Welshmen or Victorians, Queenslanders or South Australians, Western Australians or Tas-

manians. We remember only that we are Australians. We are no longer provincialists; we are nationalists. Not that we love our own State less, but rather more by reason of its partnership in the great heritage of our common

nationhood. The national feeling grows apace, and is being more fully expressed every passing day. Daily the sphere of its operations widens. In vigour and promise this, the youngest but one among the nations, yields to none. The riches of the fabled Indies sink to insignificance when compared to its manifold resources. Our Commonwealth, like a young Colossus, stands with outstretched limbs dipped in the waters of two oceans, and encircles in its capacious grasp an entire continent. It moves as one destined to greatness; nothing can prevent its achievement of its glorious heritage but the weakness of this Parliament, or the failure of the people to endow it with sufficient power.*

In the debate that followed a surprising number of the Opposition agreed

that the Constitution needed some alteration, though not as much as Hughes proposed. The two Bills passed both Houses at the end of the session, and the referendum was fixed for 26th April 1911. The sweeping nature of the Commonwealth proposals made acute the breach between Hughes and Holman. The latter, who had taken office as

Attorney-General of New South Wales in October, while the Bills were before the House of Representatives, returned early in the new year from a visit to New Zealand to find the Labor Party preparing for the referendum campaign. Strengthened in his opposition, if this were necessary, by W. A. Watt, the Liberal Treasurer of Victoria, whose acquaintance he had made

in Melbourne on his return journey, Holman at once accused Hughes of flouting the decisions of the Brisbane Conference and attempting to deprive

the States of their main functions. He tried to persuade the New South Wales State Labor Conference to pronounce against the proposals, but without success. With a very bad grace Holman accepted the verdict, though making it clear that his own attitude was unchanged. He took no pains to conceal this attitude, and, in fact, though prevented from openly joining the campaign against the proposals, he prepared and published 4C.P.D., LVIII, 4696-716 (18th October 1910).

262

THE JIBBING HORSE

anonymously a number of statements suggesting that the workers of New South Wales would find their conditions worsened if they came under Federal control. At a large St Patrick’s Day meeting, too, he invoked the principle of Home Rule to protect existing State rights. Finally, accompanied by a large party of State Parliamentarians, he ostentatiously withdrew at the height of the campaign on a well publicized inspection of the new govern-

ment-owned tourist hotel on Mount Kosciusko. It is not surprising that Hughes was furious. Holman, once the exponent of “solidarity”, had done his very efficient best to split the party and to sabotage the referendum.® Meanwhile, Fisher, having opened the campaign in Melbourne, sailed off to the Coronation and the Imperial Conference, leaving its conduct to Hughes. Hughes’s energy was equal to the task, even though he was also acting Prime Minister. Having opened the New South Wales campaign at

the Sydney Town Hall on 2nd March, he spoke successively at Albury, Wagga, Cootamundra, Bathurst, and Wollongong before returning to Sydney on the sixteenth. Almost at once he set off for Tasmania, where he spoke at Launceston and Hobart, and on his way back at Melbourne, Bendigo, Ballarat, and Hamilton. He was in Sydney on 3rd April, addressed a meeting in Brisbane on the sixth, and was at Glen Innes, Armidale, and

Tamworth on successive nights as he returned. This trip was followed immediately by a few days in South Australia. By 22nd April he was back in Melbourne for a cabinet meeting. On the twenty-fourth he issued a final appeal through the Press, and spoke at the annual Eight Hours Day lunch,

and the next day, the eve of the poll, addressed a meeting in a street in Sydney, which got him into trouble with the police for obstructing traffic. Throughout, his arguments were much the same as in Parliament, though as the campaign went on he seems to have given more prominence to rhetorical attacks on trust and combines and less to constitutional argument. The result was a resounding defeat. Both proposals were rejected by a huge majority of the total votes and in every State but Western Australia.

The same people who had given Labor a record majority only a year before now refused them the powers they claimed they needed to carry out their policy. Many reasons contributed to this result. The hostility of Holman, and the division it revealed in Labor’s own ranks, doubtless lost many votes in New South Wales and perhaps some elsewhere. The “tacking” of four proposals in one was widely criticized as unfair, and may have antagon-

ized some, as it certainly prevented others from voting for a part of the proposed powers and rejecting the rest. The very boldness of Hughes’s tactics in demanding root-and-branch changes may well have frightened an

electorate always cautious to excess where constitutional change is concerned. Whatever the causes, Hughes, though rebuffed, was not dismayed. S Evatt, 262-75.

263

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

He would put his proposals again, but this time to coincide with an election, so as to concentrate on them the whole weight of party loyalty. For the next two years the scene of the constitutional struggle shifts back to the High Court, where two important and long-drawn-out cases emphasized the impotence of the Commonwealth. These were the Sugar Company Case and the Vend Case.

The early years of the twentieth century were the heyday of “trustbusting”. All over the world the economic structure was changing rapidly. Spectacular technological discoveries, often protected by patents and requiring huge capital for their effective exploitation, new materials and methods, and the advantages often to be secured by mere scale of operation, were all tending to replace the old style of personal or family business by immense

corporations, which were felt to be remote, mysterious and sinister. In America particularly there had been a series of revelations of the anti-social and frequently unscrupulous activities of vast combines that had monopolized whole sectors of the economy and exploited their advantage without

regard for anything but profit—Standard Oil, the Steel Trust, the Beef Trust, and others. A considerable literature had grown up and was widely read. Uneasiness was world-wide: in spite of general prosperity and of the new abundance of labour-saving devices and fresh products, many ordinary people felt themselves no better off, and in some cases actually worse off, than before. “In nearly every manufactured necessary and luxury of life there has been, particularly during the past few years, an increase in price to the consumer in spite of the introduction of better machinery and the wonderful inventions of processes which have made the artisan infinitely

more efficient.” For this many blamed “the trusts”, and although in Australia there did not exist anything remotely comparable to the American prototypes, there was considerable pressure, both inside the Labor Party and

outside, for action against monopolies and combinations, and in fact the Australian Industries Preservation Act of 1906, passed by Deakin’s Govern-

ment, was an attempt, modelled on American legislation, to provide machinery for their control. Though it had been on the statute-book for over three years when Labor came into ofhce in 1g1o, no action had yet been brought under it in the courts. Most of the agitation against monopoly in Australia was in fact generalized and theoretical, based rather on the American literature than on local experience. There were, of course, cases of trade rings to control prices, and one or two firms so large as effectively to dominate their fields, but there is little evidence that their operations caused serious hardship. Hughes himself had no zeal for trust-busting as such. As a union negotiator he had

found that it was easier and more effective to negotiate with a single 6H. L. Wilkinson, The Trust Movement in Australia (Melbourne, 1914), 10. 264

THE JIBBING HORSE

organization than with a mass of individuals, while as a socialist he believed that monopolies prepared the way for taking over by the state.’ His interest

in the proposed constitutional amendment was less in breaking up trusts than in giving the Commonwealth effective control over the national economy. However, “down with monopoly” was a good war-cry, and the Labor Party was committed to attempt some kind of action. Since one of the arguments against the powers sought in the referendum had been that adequate powers already existed, his next step was to test these powers. If, as in fact happened, they proved illusory, he would not be broken-hearted. In all the discussions of monopoly both preceding and following the advent of the second Fisher Government the two most prominent examples had been the sugar industry, where the Colonial Sugar Refining Company of Sydney, as the only refiner and the dominant miller, virtually controlled the whole industry from grower to consumer, and the combination of a majority of coal-mine proprietors on the northern coalfields of New South Wales (the Coal Vend) with an association of interstate steamship-owners

to maintain the price and restrict the supply of coal to the interstate market. In both cases the Fusion Government had begun to take action, but had not carried it through. As Deakin said of the Vend case: “We had

done everything, in fact, in the way of loading the gun, and all that remained when he entered the office was to pull the trigger.’® The Colonial Sugar Refining Company was under attack from two sides.

It was accused by growers and workers in the industry of not paying enough for raw sugar to allow a decent living to be made by white workers under tropical conditions, while the Company made immense profits for its shareholders, and by the southern jam-manufacturers, a well-organized and

powerful group, of arbitrarily raising its prices and preventing them by restrictive contracts from using cheaper imported sugar. The harvest of 1909 had been a particularly poor one, and the Fusion Government, in response to a petition from the growers, had appointed a Royal Commission shortly before the election, but had allowed it to lapse when the chairman, Judge Cohen of the New South Wales Arbitration Court, resigned because of illness. Soon after he came into office Hughes’s attention was

drawn to the industry by a strike of cane-workers and mill-hands in Queensland which threatened to involve the waterside workers, as well as by complaints from the jam-manufacturers.

After the failure of the referendum, a new Royal Commission was appointed in October 1911 to inquire into every aspect of the industry. Its chairman was Sir John Gordon, of the South Australian Supreme Court, until ill-health forced his retirement, when he was succeeded by W. Jethro Brown, Professor of Law in the University of Adelaide. The other members 7Cf. D.T., 2nd November 1907: “The Case for Labor”. 8 C.P.D., LX, 122 (6th September 1911). 265

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

of the Commission were Albert Hinchcliffe, an early member of the Labor Party and at this time editor of the Queensland Worker, R. McC. Anderson, a Sydney timber merchant, M. H. Shannon, an unsuccessful Labor candid-

ate in North Queensland, and T. W. Crawford, a representative of the growers, who later became a Nationalist Senator for Queensland. Gordon, who before becoming a judge had served in the liberal Cabinets of Cockburn,

Kingston, and Holder, and had been an active member of the Federal Convention, soon established friendly and confidential relations with Hughes, while Anderson, who was said to have had Labor sympathies, was to become for many years one of Hughes’s closest associates and advisers in business matters.”

The Commission took a great deal of evidence in Queensland, but its attempts to inquire into the affairs of the Colonial Sugar Company were frustrated by the refusal of the general manager, Mr (later Sir) Edward Knox, and his directors to answer questions or produce documents called for by the Commission. Hughes put through an amendment to the Royal Commissions Act to attempt to meet the case, but its validity was promptly challenged.

The case was heard at the end of September 1912, and when judgment was given on 22nd October the Court, consisting of Grifhth, Barton, Isaacs, and Higgins—O’Connor had died just before the case began—was equally

divided. By the casting vote of the Chief Justice it held that while the amendment to the Royal Commissions Act was valid so far as it compelled the giving of evidence in connection with inquiries into any subject expressly included in the powers of the Commonwealth, such compulsion could not be extended to matters which were merely the subject of a possible amend-

ment to the Constitution. The Colonial Sugar Company, or its officers, therefore, could not be compelled to give evidence or produce books relating

to its internal organization, the wages or salaries it paid, or anything but the interstate or oversea trade in sugar, which, it maintained, was not separately distinguished in its books. “The constitution and regulation of trading companies such as the plaintiff company,” ruled Griffith, “are not matters within the area of federal power, any more than the private and domestic affairs of individual citizens.” The contention of the Crown that the Commonwealth’s powers of inquiry extended to the subjects of possible constitutional amendments he disposed of by an elaborate proof that this would make possible an inquiry into the tenets, assets, administration, and management of any religious body on the pretext of a possible amendment of section 116, which expressly removes religion from the Commonwealth sphere. “I will waste no more words on this contention,” he concluded. Earlier, in a 9C.P.D., LXI, 2202-4 (2nd November 1911)—an attack by W. H. Kelly on the political bias of the Commissioners.

266

THE JIBBING HORSE

passing allusion to “persons aggrieved by attempted departmental aggression”, he had revealed his inclination to protect the individual against any intrusion of the Government. Isaacs and Higgins dissented. In their view, the Crown contention was correct. The Royal Commission, however, was brought to a standstill with the main part of its task unfinished.*° If the Colonial Sugar Refining Company served as a local example of monopoly, the combination of Newcastle colliery proprietors with a group of shipping companies to control the interstate coal trafic seemed a classic case of combination to the detriment of the consumer.

The Coal Vend, in its original form, was an agreement among the colliery owners to divide the available market among themselves and to maintain an agreed price, by which the wage paid for hewing coal was fixed. It was an institution of long standing on the northern coalfields, though in the early years of the twentieth century it seems to have fallen into disuse, and besides preventing chaotic and ruinous underselling by some

owners it ensured a reasonable wage for the miners, with a proportionate share in any rise in the price. It was, accordingly, generally popular with the mining unions. In 1906, after a period of cut-throat competition had threatened to force prices below a workable level, the Vend was reformed, and soon afterwards its members entered into an agreement with four of the steamship companies. Under this agreement the shipping companies were to be exclusive agents for the supply of coal from the Vend pits to States other than New South Wales. In return, they undertook to sell at prices fixed by the Vend, to carry only a fixed amount of coal from nonVend sources, such as the southern coalfields, and to accept what coal the Vend made available according to the quotas fixed for each of its members.

Since by far the greater part of the coal sent interstate came from the Newcastle and Maitland fields, and since this was the only Australian coal suitable for many purposes, the combination effectively controlled the whole interstate market. The first move to prosecute the Vend under the Australian Industries Preservation Act of 1g06 was commenced in September 1907. Investigations

were instituted, but were checked by the refusal of one of the shipping companies to answer the questions put to it, a refusal upheld by the High Court, after protracted litigation, in June 1909.’* Inquiries continued, but were still not complete by the date of the election. Two days later the secretary of the Vend handed its minute-books to the Customs Department and, fortified with these, the Attorney-General’s Department prepared to

prosecute. This was the point at which Hughes took office. He had not initiated the case or taken any part in the preliminaries, but he now gave instructions that the hearing should be brought on as quickly as possible. 10 75 C.L.R., 182-235; quotations from 197, 195, I91. 11 Huddart Parker & Co. v. Moorehead, 8 C.L.R., 330.

267

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

The case, as well as being the first of its kind, was one of great complexity. The search for evidence covered all States and ranged over the events of four years. In the nature of the case, the defendants were not co-operative, though the Vend minute-books, produced at the last moment, did provide a wealth of inside information. There were forty defendants—thirty-eight individuals and corporations and the two combinations of the colliery and steamship proprietors respectively—and nearly thirty separate charges under the Act were involved. The case finally came on before Mr Justice Isaacs on 13th April 1911, shortly before the referendum. The Commonwealth was represented by B.

R. Wise, K.C., the brilliant young man of the time of Hughes’s début in politics, who had been a member of the Federal Convention, AttorneyGeneral in four New South Wales Governments, and author of the Arbitration Act that had been part of the price Lyne had paid to Labor for the Premiership in 1899. Because of some inherent instability of character he had never fulfilled his promise, either in law or in politics, and this case offered him, now in his fifties, a final chance to achieve greatness. With him were A. B. Shand, K.C., a few years his junior but recognized as a leader of the Sydney Bar, famous especially for his cross-examinations, and T. R. Bavin, the mentor of Hughes’s law-student days and his associate in

the Early Closing League, later private secretary to Barton as Prime Minister, and now an industrious and rising junior at the Sydney Bar. Against them were, for the colliery proprietors, Adrian Knox, K.C., the regular counsel for the coal-owners and the most brilliant lawyer at the Sydney Bar, and S. E. Lamb, K.C., who shared Knox’s eminence in constitutional matters—usually they appeared on opposite sides in the High Court in New South Wales cases—with their juniors. J. & A. Brown and John Brown were separately represented by J. L. Campbell, K.C., a specialist in the common law, and Wilfred Blacket, who was to take silk the next year.

For the shipowners, E. F. Mitchell, K.C., pre-eminent among Victorian barristers in constitutional cases, appeared with two juniors. The hearing occupied seventy-three days spread over four months; the judgment, deliyered nearly four months later, took three days to read and occupies 272 pages of the Law Reports.** The parties were, of course, no strangers to Hughes. With the managements of the shipping companies he was thoroughly familiar as a union leader, and he had not so long ago been appearing against them for the Merchant Service Guild in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The Coal Vend had been prominently in the public eye during the

coal strike of 1909, and had then been attacked by Hughes, who had previously been disposed to approve of it, as conspiring to create a monopoly in order to exploit the public. 12 14 C.L.R., 396-667.

268

THE JIBBING HORSE

Isaacs was well aware of the historic importance of the occasion. As Attorney-General in the second Deakin Ministry he had been the author of the original Australian Industries Preservation Act of 1906, and he had given considerable thought to the subject. His judgment traversed in detail both the facts of the particular case brought out in evidence and the existing law on the subject. It almost seemed designed to serve as a textbook on its subject, and, according to Hughes, “stands to-day as the most comprehensive judicial utterance extant on anti-trust legislation under our own statute, as well as that of America”. Copies had been asked for by the United States

Supreme and State Courts.’’ There was no doubt about the fact of the combination, or that it had in fact increased prices and restricted the choice of the consumer. The production of the minute-books provided the evidence, so difficult to establish in such cases, that these effects were clearly envisaged by the participants. The only question was whether they were themselves intended, or whether they were merely incidental to other legitimate and even praiseworthy objects “having due regard to the interests of producers,

workers and consumers”, such as ensuring the stability of the industry, regularity of supply, or fair wages for the miners. This contention Isaacs, with elaborate sarcasm, dismissed, and, finding for the Crown, fined each

defendant the maximum of £500 and ordered the combination to break up forthwith. Hughes derived no satisfaction from the verdict, though he duly congratulated Powers, the Crown Solicitor, on the “masterly and indefatigable way” in which he had carried the case to its conclusion. “The case will stand as a veritable monument and model for lesser men to look to.” First there was the prospect of an appeal. The colliery proprietors might have been willing to leave the Commonwealth its somewhat Pyrrhic victory in return for an

understanding about costs, but the shipowners, having perhaps an eye to their freight agreements, were obdurate.** But even without an appeal, the practical results of the case on which such immense resources of time, labour, and money had been lavished did not impress him. The Labor Party had always contended that the Australian Industries Preservation Act would prove useless against monopolies, and that only by nationalization could their anti-social excesses be controlled, and now they had their proof. “The Trust to-day is crushed under the full weight of the Anti-trust Act— and I never saw a trust look healthier in my life!” was his comment.?® He

was not slow to point the moral. This is the remedy these gentlemen opposite have for dealing with these trusts. This is the remedy which, after existing as a barren fig tree for four 13 C.P.D., LXIV, 160 (26th June 1912). 14 “Correspondence: Vend Appeal”, 1912 (Hughes Papers). 15 C.P.D., LXIV, 162 (26th June 1912); for a summary of the 1906 debate, see Sawer, 46.

269

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

years, has at length produced its Dead Sea fruit, which has left the companies no worse off than they were before, and benefited the public not at all. I am

not in favour of treating trusts in this fashion. It harasses them without benefiting the public. It has not done one human being in this country the fractional part of a penny’s good. It has harassed the shipping companies unnecessarily, and has not done anybody any good. It is rotten from whatever

side it is looked at. From the employers’ side it is no good, and from the workers’ side it is no good.'6

The appeal of the shipping companies, delayed for various reasons, was heard in August and September by the Full Bench, consisting of Griffith, Barton, and O’Connor. Knox and Mitchell appeared for the companies,

Wise, Starke, and Bavin for the Commonwealth. In a short and almost contemptuous judgment read on 20th September for all three judges, Gritfith swept aside all the ingenuities of Isaacs’s reasoning. An act that was detrimental to consumers was not necessarily detrimental to the public as a whole. Nor was it enough to prove intent to restrain trade even if injury to the public followed. Mere intent to restrain trade and commerce without the further intent to cause detriment to the public is not sufficient. . . . Cut-throat competition is not now regarded by a large portion of mankind as necessarily beneficial to the public. . .. It follows ... that the real subject of inquiry in this case is whether the appellants entered into the contract or combination alleged with an actual intent to restrain trade to the detriment of the public.

In the Vend agreement, “the intention of the parties was to put the Newcastle coal trade on a satisfactory basis, which would enable them to pay adequate wages to their men and to sell their coal at a price remunerative to themselves, having regard to the capital and risk involved in the enterprise”. If they also intended to ask as high a price as they could get in the market, “this is not, in OUr Opinion, an intention to cause detriment to the public”. It cannot be doubted that it is for the public benefit, perhaps especially in a new country, that the persons who engaged in new enterprises should be encouraged by the hope of larger profits than those who confine themselves

to the older grooves. ... We are, therefore, bound to decide the case upon the evidence, and upon that evidence we are of opinion that the Crown has failed to prove any intent on the part of the appellants to cause detriment to the public. This disposes of the case as regards penalties.

We are also of opinion that the Crown has failed to prove any actual detriment to the public. This disposes of the claim to an injunction... . The result is that the appeal must be allowed, judgment entered for the appellant defendants with costs, and with the costs of the appeal.!” 16 C.P.D., LXIV, 163. 17 75 C.L.R. (1912-13), 72-103.

270

CHAPTER XVI

“Packing” the High Court F THE DECISION in the Vend appeal seemed to demonstrate the inadequacy

| of the Australian Industries Preservation Act as a means of curbing

monopolies through the courts, the Sugar Company case, decided on the casting vote of Sir Samuel Grifhth, underlined the narrow margin of personalities on which important constitutional decisions might rest. The tone, no less than the content, of Grifhth’s recent judgments showed clearly that the Labor Government could look for no sympathy for their social and economic outlook while he controlled the Bench. This impression was heightened by a sharp brush between Griffith and Hughes over the Crown’s methods in Melbourne Steamship Co. v. Moorehead, a subsidiary part of the Vend litiga-

tion, in which, oditer, the Chief Justice mused that “the old-fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects, which I learned a very long time ago

to regard as elementary, is either not known or thought out of date”, a criticism that was fiercely resented by Hughes in Parliament.’ Other decisions had severely limited the application of Federal arbitration and had invalidated the Seamen’s Compensation Act of 1909.” It seemed that the field of Commonwealth activity was not only being checked, but was being actually reduced by the trend of judicial decisions. It was in these circumstances that Hughes found himself called upon, at

the end of 1912, to make not one, but three appointments to the High Court Bench, one to replace O’Connor, who had died in November, and two for additional positions which had been created by the Judiciary Act of 1gI2 to meet the growing pressure of work in the Court. Hughes did not lack encouragement for his view that, while major changes must clearly depend on the increase of powers which he was again to seek at the time of the 1913 election, another line of legal interpretation more favourable to the policies of the Government, at least in detail, was perfectly possible.

There were the dissenting views of Isaacs and Higgins, the former of whom, particularly, regularly opposed to the common-sense individualism of Griffith and Barton an ingeniously argued and extremely learned position 1Griffith, 75 C.L.R., 342; Hughes, C.P.D., LXVII, 4449. 2 Sawer, 107-8. We can now see that, as far as the arbitration power was concerned, the trend was already beginning to be reversed, but this was hardly apparent at the time, and in any case depended on a precarious balance of judicial views.

271

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

far more favourable to Labor’s social views. Other criticisms of Grifhth’s line came in private correspondence. In September, Professor Jethro Brown, Chairman of the Sugar Commission, correctly guessed Hughes’s reaction to the Vend judgment and expressed his own doubts on it: Dear Attorney-General, I yield to the temptation to congratulate you on the judgment in the Vend appeal. For aught I can say, the decision was a right one. But the principles affirmed in the judgment, if they are to be accepted as a final verdict on the

existing Anti-Trust Laws (even making allowance for later amendments) make the control of Trusts by such laws utterly ineffectual. Personally, I regret the statement of some of these principles; and believe them bad law. ... At the same time, I cannot but see that when your Referenda campaign comes along, you will find in such principles the material for caustic indictment of the established order.?

The judgment in the Sugar case moved the former chairman of the Commission, Sir John Gordon, to write from his retreat in Kangaroo Island where he was recovering from a breakdown of his health: My dear Mr Hughes,

So the C.J. has put the Sugar Commn. in shackles! When I read his judgment my vocabulary made a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors. One could see from his divagations during the argument, that (of course quite unconsciously) he would give the Comm. a knock somehow, si possit recte si non. The decision is neither logical in the abstract, nor consistent with practical business affairs. . ..

The judgmts. of Isaacs and Higgins are most convincing, and their conclusively [sic] that the CJ. is wrong. Of course it is all the C.J. Barton is only a sheep in wolf’s clothing. He dare not call his legal soul his own. How rare is the judicial mind in which analytical power is blended with practical common sense and independent thought;—qualities so indispensable to the proper administration of justice! ... If the National aspirations are not to be continually frustrated by excessive legalism and reactionary ideas concerning the semi political principles which are necessarily involved in Constitutional questions, the judicial power must be confined as closely as possible in regard to such matters. The foundation of progress and hope for the future, lie in the emancipation of the people from these reactionary tendencies.*

The last paragraph might have served Hughes as a motto in his search for his new judges. The matter was by no means easy. The three judges to

be appointed might well shape the thinking of the Court for the next generation. That they should at least have open minds towards the view of social action which underlay the whole policy of the Labor Party, now 3 W. Jethro Brown to W. M. Hughes, 22nd September 1912 (Hughes Papers), 4 Sir John Gordon to W. M. Hughes, 13th October 1912 (Hughes Papers). 272

“PACKING” THE HIGH COURT

one of the two great parties between which the government of the Com-

monwealth must alternate, was clear enough. On the other hand, the critics of the party were lying in wait to raise the cry of partizanship. If they were to be even partially silenced, the appointees must be of unimpeachable professional eminence, not only in constitutional matters.

For the High Court at this time was not only, and perhaps not even mainly, a constitutional tribunal. It was also a court of appeal, alternative to the Privy Council, from the decisions in all kinds of cases of the State Supreme Courts, still very jealous of their standing. At the same time it provided the judges for the Arbitration Court, the work of which had increased rapidly and would do so far more if the 1913 referendum were to be successful. This is unlikely, in view of his special interests, to have been overlooked by Hughes, and since, hitherto, the arbitration jurisdiction had usually been delegated to the junior member of the Court, it might well be expected that one at least of the new judges would be largely employed in it. Since the law is of its nature a conservative profession, and since all its older practitioners were still steeped in the traditions and allegiances of their several States, suitable men were not easy to find. Moreover, Hughes did not possess that intimate knowledge of the personalities concerned that is gained by daily practice as a professional colleague. Even in his own State, his practice had been slight and narrowly specialized. His Cabinet colleagues

could give him no help; he was in fact embarrassed by the naive public statements of Fisher and McGregor suggesting that Labor should be “represented” on the Bench.” His mind may have turned first to Sir John Gordon, whom he had got to know well in connection with the Sugar Commission, and whose outspoken private comments on Griffith have already been quoted.° Gordon, a Scot by birth, had spent his whole adult life in South Australia, where he had won distinction both in law and politics. He was, however, sixty-two years old and in poor health, and if an offer was made to him it was rejected. From his retreat on Kangaroo Island, however, he proffered his advice in reply to a letter from Hughes. I quite agree with your opinion of Glynn. He is a pamphlet in breeches. He is a good fellow, learned and all that, but ineffective. His mental output always seems to me to resemble scrambled eggs,—wholesome enough, but messy. The C.J. would I am afraid bring him “to heel”. I know you don’t “go nap” on Wise. But there is much to be said in his favour. Again I feel that my friend Brown has not impressed you. But there are few men upon whom I would myself place more reliance for a broad view of Constitutional questions, and a mind above those petty judicial decisions which as Thayer the eminent American jurist says somewhere, are a danger to the Community. 5 See, for example, Argus, 18th February 1913 (leading article). 6 That Gordon was offered the first appointment is stated in the Argus of 6th February 1913 on the authority of a telephone interview with Hughes.

273

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

... No doubt you have scanned the State Supreme Court Benches, and have considered the merits of Ferguson of NSW, and Nicholls of Tasmania. It is a devil of a job! The future of the Commonwealth may, indeed must, largely depend upon your selection. I should not myself if I were A.G., hesitate to recommend a junior like Bavin, rather than a doubtful K.C. You are right! You need men not mere legal forked radishes.’

Hector Lamond, editor of the Worker, who was employed by Hughes to make some discreet soundings in Sydney, had his own piece of advice to offer:

Have you considered Garran? The more I look at that idea the better I like it, provided he possesses the judicial faculty. His would be a non-political apptt., it would please the civil service as showing that high honors can be won in that service, and—to come down a bit—would leave the S.M. Herald without a word to say in protest. Garran is a young man—an Australian; a

great constitutional lawyer. Has he the other qualifications? If he has I’d give him the first appointment. There’d be nothing to criticise except his youth and if he made good the precedent would be useful. Anyhow it would place the “non-political” party hors de combat and as he is popular with Sydney journalists there would be little sustained fire. And the way would be clear for whatever appointments you desire later on.§

Of these various candidates, Glynn had come from Ireland to Australia at the age of twenty-five. He was now fifty-six, and had had an appropriately distinguished career both at the South Australian Bar and in politics,

and, like all the judges to date, he had been a member of the Federal Convention. He had been Hughes’s predecessor as Attorney-General in the Fusion government, and was one of the chief lawyers of the Opposition. What Hughes thought of him may be inferred from Gordon’s reply quoted above.? Wise, also, on paper, an obvious candidate, and like Glynn a member

of the Federal Convention, was known to Hughes from his New South Wales days and had lately been briefed by the Commonwealth in the Vend case. Hughes had clearly not been impressed, and the two were to come into conflict later, when Wise was Holman’s Agent-General in London during

the war. Jethro Brown had the learning, but had spent his whole life in academic posts. At forty-four he was comparatively young. Bavin, who had also been briefed in the Vend case, was thirty-eight. He had the requisite liberal social views and had been one of Barton’s young men. He might have

made an excellent appointment, but was still in process of establishing himself, and was noted for industry and soundness rather than brilliance. 7 Sir John Gordon to W. M. Hughes, 29th November 1912 (Hughes Papers). 8 1]. Lamond to W. M. Hughes, 4th December 1912 (Hughes Papers).

9 He was still being tipped by the S.M. Herald on 6th February 1913, in the belief that he would have had the first post except that Cabinet considered it unfair to deprive the Opposition of his services in drafting their case for the coming referendum.

274

“PACKING” THE HIGH COURT

Garran, another of Barton’s men, was forty-five. As Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, he had worked closely with Hughes and

was on excellent terms with him. He, too, would have made a good appointment, but, in spite of Lamond, one that would certainly have been criticized in the profession on the grounds of lack of wide practice at the Bar.

Apart from the judges of the State Supreme Courts, who were no doubt looked over, and one or two of whom may have received tentative offers, the

other obvious candidates were the leading practitioners before the High Court itself. These were, so far as major cases went, very few. In Victoria, Irvine, Mitchell and Duffy, in New South Wales Knox and Lamb, and in South Australia (where the Court sat less frequently) Symon and Glynn, were the acknowledged leaders. “Iceberg” Irvine would have been politically

an impossible appointment for a Labor Government, though Hughes personally respected his legal ability. Knox was closely associated with the shipping and colliery proprietors as well as, by family connections, with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. He was to be appointed Chief Justice by Hughes in 191g. Mitchell and Lamb, if considered, were probably reluctant to leave their practices. Symon was sixty-six, and known to be conservative in his view of the Constitution.

For his first appointment, announced on 6th February 1913, Hughes played safe. Frank Gavan Duffy, K.C., who had appeared for the Commonwealth in the Sugar case, was not only the recognized leader of the Victorian Bar in Banco and Nisi Prius as well as in constitutional cases, he was also generally popular, and his appointment was greeted with warm approval by

the Press, especially in Melbourne. The general attitude was well put by Garran, on holiday at Moss Vale: I saw the news of Duffy’s appointment to the Bench to-day. If I may say so, I think it is quite the best appointment you could have made. He has a thorough grip of constitutional law, sound judgment, and an unusual endowment of common sense—to say nothing of the saving grace of humour, which is one of the best things in the world to prevent a man from going wrong.?°

Duffy was then sixty. He lived to become Chief Justice in 1930, and to hold that office until 1936.

Having thus, as he hoped, disarmed his critics, Hughes followed up with two much more controversial appointments. The first of these was Charles Powers, who had held the office of Commonwealth Crown Solicitor since 1903, having previously held a similar office in Queensland, where he

had earlier been for short periods successively Postmaster-General and Leader of the Opposition. He had had the detailed management of the 10R. R. Garran to W. M. Hughes, 6th February 1913 (Hughes Papers). T

275

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

prosecution of the Vend, and was a competent, though hardly inspired, official. His appointment was severely criticized by the Victorian Bar on the ground that he was a solicitor, but he survived the ill-feeling and, though he contributed little to the High Court, became a successful Arbitration Court judge. For the third appointment, Hughes’s choice fell on A. B. Piddington, a Sydney barrister of great scholarship, high principles, and broadly liberal

views. After a brilliant academic career, during which he was classical medallist, lecturer in English literature, and an examiner in German, French, and History at the University of Sydney, Piddington had been called to the Bar, but had almost at once interrupted his career to defeat the Premier, Sir George Dibbs, in the election of 1895 and serve one term in Parliament as a follower of Reid’s Free Trade party, and to play a prominent part in the opposition to the Federation Bill of 1897-8. He had since won a place for himself at the Bar, though hardly one commensurate with his intellectual abilities, a fact perhaps due to his wide interests, for the law is a jealous mistress, and solicitors are inclined to be suspicious of such versatility as Piddington’s. However this may be, he was still, at fifty, in junior practice. He had practised a good deal in arbitration, and was something of an expert on labour questions, on which he had lately conducted a Royal Commission for the New South Wales Government.”* Piddington was not, and never had been, a member of the Labor Party. Hughes would have known him slightly, both as a parliamentary colleague for a short period and as a practitioner in the State Arbitration Court, but he had no close contact with him, and, while he knew Piddington to be in general of liberal views, he did not know what his attitude on constitutional

questions would be. That he should wish to satisfy himself on this in general terms before offering the appointment was reasonable enough, but the means he took to do so were to cause considerable trouble. Piddington had been absent for almost a year on a visit to England where, characteristically, he appeared for the State of New South Wales in an appeal before the Privy Council, represented the University of Sydney at a Congress of the Universities of the Empire, and was a delegate to a congress on eugenics. Piddington’s name had perhaps been suggested to Hughes in the first place by his brother-in-law, Dowell O’Reilly, a minor poet and former Labor member of the New South Wales Parliament, whom Hughes had recommended to a temporary position in the Taxation Office after the introduction of the land tax. Anyway, it was to O’Reilly that he now turned, writing: I want to put Piddington on the High Court Bench. But before doing so I must be satisfied that he is not a rabid States Rights champion. I should ae Commission on the Alleged Shortage of Labour in State of New South Wales IQII). 276

“PACKING THE HIGH COURT

never be forgiven if I made myself responsible for such an act as that, and as I think quite properly. It is, then, a matter of the greatest possible importance to the country, to Piddington, and to me. If you know Piddington’s ideas and

can give an assurance on his behalf that he looks favourably upon the national side of things, that will be quite sufficient. If you do not know this then cable immediately on receipt of this. I suggest the cable should read thus—“Confidential and important know your views Commonwealth versus State Rights, very urgent.”!

Piddington was already on his way back from England, and the cable was sent on rst February to intercept him at Port Said. In haste and not, as

he afterwards claimed, knowing what was intended, he replied, “In sympathy with supremacy of Commonwealth powers.” This reply O’Reilly

forwarded to Hughes,’* to whom it gave the information he sought. He proceeded accordingly with the appointment, writing to Piddington on 17th February My dear Mr Piddington, I am commissioned by the Government to offer you the position of Justice

of the High Court of the Commonwealth, and to add that it will give us great pleasure if you are able to accept it.14

According to a statement by Piddington nine years later, he “became uneasy” after leaving Port Said “as to the propriety of having expressed any political view which might possibly be used in connection with the offer of a seat on the Bench”. His account goes on: When the offer came at Colombo I replied to Mr Hughes: “Unofficial. If with complete independence [as to] validity questions shall accept. Do not hesitate [to] withdraw offer if you wish, wire again Frederick der Grosse and I will reply officially, grateful anyhow.” Mr Hughes did not wire again, and I did not know until nearing Fremantle that my cable was regarded as an acceptance, and that my acceptance had been officially announced.!®

The offer to Piddington was announced in the Press on 14th February (three days before Hughes’s letter if the copy is correctly dated!), and his acceptance on 18th February. When the ship reached Adelaide, on 1st March, Piddington wrote to Hughes: “Your letter offering me a seat on the High Court Bench reached me on my arrival to-day. I accept the invitation with gratitude and with the 12 Quoted by Piddington, D.T., 13th December 1922. The cable actually read: ‘Confidential.

‘had ) important know your views Commonwealth versus State Rights. Very Urgent.’ (Quoted, 13 Cable, Piddington to O’Reilly, 2nd February 1913 (Hughes Papers). 14 W. M. Hughes to A. B. Piddington (copy in Hughes Papers). 15 D.T., 13th December 1922.

277

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

hope that I may prove of service to the country.” He also sent two telegrams, one official—“Very grateful to government for letter with invitation accepted”—and one private: “Will call at once on arrival of ship Monday.”

On 5th March he wrote from the ship, “I enclose a formal answer to the Government’s invitation, dated at Adelaide. With our kindest regards.” On reaching Melbourne, Piddington received a letter from Hughes, who was holidaying at the seaside: Irvine has just sent me a reply to my note asking him to welcome you on behalf of the Victorian Bar to the effect that as this would be opposed to the desire of the Bar he could not do it.

This is pretty low down. It is I think more political than personal and pretty poor at that. I suggest one of two things. (1) Get sworn in on Monday in Melbourne and I will say Hello! how are you.

(2) Get sworn in in Sydney later and get the Bar there to welcome you. If No. 1 wire me and tell the chief. Don’t tell him why. But insist upon it. (Say if you like that I shall be away on Tuesday.) Hoping all goes well.1"

The storm soon broke. On 13th March the Argus published the news that the Bars of New South Wales and Victoria had formally resolved not to offer their congratulations to the two new judges when they took their seats. In a leading article, the same journal gave the reasons for the protest, which it described as unique in the history of Australia, denying that the

motives were political. |

Lawyers in practice desire only to appear before judges who have been eminent in the profession. There were no protests about Isaacs and Higgins although probably not five per cent of the bar agreed with the political views of those gentlemen—they were acknowledged leaders. . . . Mr Piddington’s long practice could justify his being raised to the bench of the District Court,

provided his knowledge and ability had equipped him with the requisite qualifications. His status in the profession is, putting it mildly, only moderate;

yet he has been called to a Bench which will decide appeals from State judges who are, in knowledge of law, immeasurably his superiors. Not only

so, but he is to hear arguments upon constitutional problems by lawyers beside whose attainments his own shrink into absurd insignificance. It is little wonder that such men feel not only dismayed and indignant, but affronted, by the choice of the Labor Ministry.

The paper went on to apply the same line of criticism to Powers, whose practice had been as a solicitor, and to suggest that the appointments would 16 Originals of letters and telegrams in Hughes Papers. 17 Copy (undated) in Hughes Papers.

278

“PACKING THE HIGH COURT

deter litigants from appealing to the High Court. “It would be better to appeal to the Privy Council.” When the Federal Constitution Bill was under public discussion the people of Australia were assured that in the High Court they were to have a

tribunal fitted by legal learning and training to decide appeals. . . . This understanding has been rudely shattered so far as the appointment of Messrs Powers and Piddington is concerned.*®

An even more savage attack on Piddington appeared in the Bulletin. Under the heading, “The Ghastly Error of W. M. Hughes”, it commented in an editorial: On Friday last a shriek of derision was distinctly audible, in legal circles, from Port Danger and right through to N.W. Cape—Friday being the day on which the Government’s last two High Court appointments were announced. Powers and Piddington, regarded as High Court Judges, are not so much mistakes as grim tragedies.

... Piddington was, till W. M. Hughes discovered him last week, a more or less obscure junior, with a modest, in fact, insignificant practice... . His personal character is, of course, unimpeachable. On the other hand he is one of the last whom a colleague would select as the possessor of a judicial mind. He possesses no sense of legal proportion. His intellect 1s, forensically speaking, of the perverse and pedantic order. He was a “coach” for years, and the mark of the schoolmaster is still on him in plain figures. His experience of public affairs (that experience which the Lord Chancellor of England wisely remarked at the last Guildhall Banquet, was “an essential in the case of

good judges”) has been meagre, to put it mildly. He beat Dibbs, on the Free-trade ticket, in 1893, and for a few months battled for low-tariffism, in

company with W. M. Hughes and others. Then the electors turned him down, and he went out of Parliament for life. Incidentally, he was associated

with Hughes as one of the joint secretaries of the Anti-Federal League. Powers was for six years a Bundaberg solicitor.

.. . He has been a useful Crown Solicitor. . . . It is possible that he has been helpful to Hughes in Constitutional points. The latter, being no lawyer himself, is driven to depend almost entirely on careful “devilling”’. However, the probabilities are that Garran, a really sound Constitutionalist has done

most of this work. ... The men who were fitted for this big job stand out like beacons. The names which occur most readily are Patrick McMahon Glynn, B. R. Wise, Josiah Symon and Irvine the Iceberg. . . . The explanation of the calamity is to be found chiefly in the fatal yearning

—increasingly observable of late on the part of a section of the Fisher Ministry—to win honeyed words of commendation from the Tory press... . The best that can be said for the man who was primarily responsible for the disaster that befell last week, is that he knew no better. W. M. Hughes is 18 Argus, 13th March 1913 (leading article).

279

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

not a practising barrister himself. He is ignorant of the reputations that are being made and lost in the Courts year by year. ... It is, indeed, a misfortune that the destinies of a great Court should be in such hands,}9

The important thing about such attacks, of course, is not whether they were true or false, but that they could be made. Piddington’s character made him particularly vulnerable to such unpleasantness. He was deeply perturbed by the professional hostility he found in Melbourne; that of Sydney, among his own colleagues, was still more distressing. Powers, less sensitive and more self-confident, braved the storm and was accepted. Piddington, coming home to private worries in addition to his public crisis, broke down. Overwrought, he concluded that he had been trapped into giving an improper commitment and, after consulting Sir William Cullen, Chief Justice of New South Wales, and Sir Edmund Barton, he sent in his resignation on 24th March, at the same time issuing a statement to the Press to the effect that he was resigning for private reasons wholly unconnected with the agitation against his appointment. Piddington telegraphed the news of his resignation and the text of his statement to Hughes in Melbourne. The latter was already on his way to Sydney to assist at the swearing-in on the twenty-fifth, and first learnt the news from the newspapers at Moss Vale. He at once telegraphed requesting Piddington to refrain from making any public statement until he had seen

Hughes next morning.”? It was, however, too late—the statement had already gone out, and was published in the morning papers of 25th March. At the same time Piddington wrote to Hughes: Dear Hughes,

I ought to let you know that the question of resigning only arose last week and I decided it at the earliest moment consistent with full deliberation. The intervention of the holidays delaved my steps.

Perhaps you'll let me mention that Blacket K.C. would in my opinion be, with the exception of Knox the best appointment that could be made and popular with the High Court, the profession and the public. With very real regrets for any inconvenience this may put you to.*+

O’Reilly was dumbfounded, and hastened to write his account to Hughes: I was amazed to receive a line from my sister by this morning’s post telling me of Piddington’s inexplicable resolution. I had seen them on Friday 19 Bulletin, 20th February 1913, 8.

20 Telegrams from Piddington to Hughes, and copy of that from Hughes to Piddington, in Hughes Papers. “On reaching Moss Vale I was staggered to read in the paper that Mr Piddington had resigned. I did not receive his resignation for hours after I had read of it in the press.” (Hughes in D.T., 13th December 1922, 11.) 21 A. B. Piddington to W. M. Hughes, 24th March 1913 (Hughes Papers). 280

“PACKING THE HIGH COURT

night: they then seemed worried about something—a fact that I attributed to grave worries of a private family nature, that I know have recently developed in connection with Piddington’s half-brother’s recent death. They gave no

hint of this tragic resolution. I went and saw my sister by first train (to Pennant Hills) this morning. Put the case as strongly as I could from all points of view to her. She would give me no reason at all—said (and evidently believed!) that explanation to be published would make everything clear and reflect on no one—they have clearly (in a period of high nervous tension) concentrated their minds (to the exclusion of all else) on something they have never seen at all till this last day or two, and that—alas! their best friends will never be able to see. . . .??

Neither Hughes nor O’Reilly had any doubt that Piddington had lost his nerve at the last moment in the face of the hostility of the Bar. To Hughes, as he put it in the heat of controversy nine years later, Piddington “threw up the sponge; without even having the decency to send his resignation in writing to me before notifying the press. He resigned from his great ofhce like a panic-stricken office boy.”** Sir Edmund Barton, more sympathetic (and less involved) wrote to a friend: Piddington has had to solve for himself a question of peculiar difficulty. There are those who will say that he could have served his country better by keeping his high appointment, and these will or may say that his action is quixotic. It is true that he has exacted for himself adherence to a standard of honor far higher than that which serves the needs of many good men. But the pure in heart who have the clearer vision will surely see his conduct as worthy of a high mind, and his friends will know that their souls and his are gripping hands.**

It is probably impossible after this interval to determine completely the rights and wrongs of the matter. Even the facts are open to some uncertainty: there is no record in Hughes’s papers of the exchange of cables at Colombo described by Piddington, and it seems inconsistent with Piddington’s letter from Adelaide preserved by Hughes. Yet no one who knew him would suspect Piddington of wilful falsehood, even in the heat of election

controversy. It is, however, just possible that in the intervening years, brooding over a period of feverish uncertainty, he came to believe that a document he had only contemplated had actually been sent. Hughes has been accused, both at the time and since, of an attempt to “pack” the High Court—“the only recorded attempt at ‘packing’ the High Court of Australia”.*’ Of this charge Hughes must, I think, be acquitted. 22TD. P. O’Reilly to W. M. Hughes, 24th March 1913 (Hughes Papers). 23 D.T., 14th December 1922. 24 Quoted by Piddington in D.T., 13th December 1922. 25 Argus, 20th February 1913 (leading article); Sawer, 105. 281

WILLIAM MORRIS HiGHES

The appointment was certainly not preital 11 the narrow sense—Piddington was not, and never had been, a memb:r of ‘the Labor Party, nor, though an attempt was made to make political capital against Hughes, were the politics of the appointee the main reason, at least ostensibly, for the protests.”°

And, indeed, there were excellent precedents for political appointments, provided the other requirements were met. Not only were they customary in the case of many British judicial offices, but all members of the High Court to date, with the exception of Griffith, who had withdrawn a few years earlier from an eminent and highly controversial political career to the calmer atmosphere of the State Bench, had been appointed directly from Parliament, and, except for Higgins, were actually holding office at the time of their appointment. For Hughes to have sought appointees who would not be out of sympathy with his party’s general line of interpretation of the Constitution was neither unusual nor reprehensible—he could hardly have acted otherwise. Certainly the Port Said telegram was an abrupt and unfortunate method of seeking information, and the handling of the whole business lacks something of Hughes’s usual professional touch. Hughes was driven by a strong sense of urgency: Piddington’s absence had already greatly delayed a much overdue appointment, and O'Reilly, one suspects, brought to

the affair the aura of amateurishness which seems to envelop it. From Hughes’s point of view, no effort had been made to bind Piddington improperly; he had merely sought and received certain information that would

normally have been obtained more discreetly in clubs and social gatherings. To Piddington, highly strung and abnormally sensitive, the affair came to assume a Sinister significance that was never intended, though it seems rather to have been the discovery of how others might interpret it than his own misgivings that prompted his action on the eve of taking his seat. When, nine years later, in the heat of an election contest, the controversy blazed out again, the two were at cross-purposes. From his own point of view each was undoubtedly right: to Hughes, Piddington had displayed an inconstancy of purpose and thinness of skin which, however high their motive, showed him unsuited for an office requiring a certain toughness and determination; to Piddington, Hughes had sought by devious means to undermine his judicial integrity. The two men were, by temperament, as far opposed as possible, and this unfortunate episode had dramatized their incompatibility. In addition to the Judiciary Act, Hughes had in the last session piloted through Parliament an Act to establish the Interstate Commission, as pro-

vided in the Constitution, to act as a judicial and fact-finding body in matters affecting trade and commerce, so far as the Commonwealth powers 26 Cf. the resolution of the N.S.W. Bar Association, quoted in the Argus, 26th March 1913 (leading article), and the Argus leader of 13th March 1913: “politics does not enter into the matter”. 282

“PACKING” THE HIGH COURT

extended. While the controversy over Piddington’s appointment was at its height, a rumour gained ground that Hughes would leave politics to become

Chairman of the new body, about the membership of which there was much speculation.“’ Hughes denied the rumour, which he attributed to wishful thinking by his opponents, and in the end the Labor Government did not appoint the Commission before the election. There is a certain irony in the fact that when, after Labor’s defeat, Cook came to make the appointments, A. B. Piddington became Chairman. Hughes at once wrote to inform Fisher of the Piddington affair and the difficulties it caused: As you know Piddington had rushed the press before I arrived here and I saw him to-day. His explanation was lame in the extreme. He gave me no reason for his extraordinary conduct beyond repeating what he had said in his telegram:

I told him what I thought of him. He did not like it. But my remarks were quite justified.

I saw Frazer this morning. He agrees that the appointment should be made at once. He knows nothing of either man: He thinks Starke a good man. So do I but as I understand quite opposed to our view. Frazer is to see Isaacs J. casually. I am of course not in any way involved. Naturally his view is not conclusive. But it may be useful. I shall see Charlie again at 5.30: and will write you further.*®

With the election and the law term approaching, and the appointment long overdue, Hughes had no time to lose, and without further delay offered the vacant seat to George Rich, a Sydney K.C. of impeccable standing, a lawyer’s lawyer with no interest in politics but a profound knowledge, both academic and practical, of equity and common law and at the time of his appointment a justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court. Rich, whose

appointment was announced on 3rd April, was fifty. He retired in 1950, and lived till 1956, outliving even Hughes.

27 E.g. Bulletin, 13th February 1913, 18; Argus, 4th March 1913, 12; S.M.H., 13th March 1913; R. McC. Anderson to W. M. Hughes, 17th March 1913; Allen Taylor to W. M. Hughes, 25th March 1913: ‘‘Re Inter-State Commission my good friend you are a marvellous man to let this opportunity pass. ...’’ (Hughes Papers.) 28 Hughes to Fisher, 25th March 1913 (Fisher Papers). Charles Edward Frazer, member for Kalgoorlie, W.A., was at this time Postmaster-General; H. E. Starke, a leading Melbourne barrister, had appeared for the Commonwealth in the Vend appeal. He was appointed to the High Court in 1920.

283

CHAPTER XVII

Deadlock HE FOURTH Commonwealth Parliament was dissolved on 25th April

| 1913 and the election was set for 31st May. At the same time the

people were asked to vote again on the extension of Commonwealth powers, the powers asked for being similar to those sought in 1g11 with slight modifications to make clear the exclusion of State-owned industries,

but with an additional amendment explicitly bringing State railway employees under the Federal arbitration power. By holding the referendum at the same time as an election, Hughes secured a much larger turn-out of electors, and also that all the resources of the Labor Party would be mobilized and the sentiment of Labor solidarity emphasized. This time, too, the six powers requested were to be voted on separately, instead of four being “handcuffed

together, and sent to the country like a chain-gang”, as Deakin put it,’ a procedure that had been widely criticized as depriving the elector of the right to discriminate and forcing him to accept all or none of the powers. This removed the charge of unfairness, but by giving the electors eight separate ballot papers to mark probably increased considerably the number of informal votes. Hughes was also at great pains to secure unanimity within the party, the lack of which he regarded as the main cause of the previous failure. A special conference of the New South Wales Political Labor League in August rgit refused to discipline Holman for his past attitude and rejected a motion by Hughes to confer on the Federal parliamentarians the sole right to interpret the Federal platform between meetings of the Interstate Confer-

ence, but passed a motion requiring all members to support proposals approved by the Interstate Conference. This was strengthened at the annual State Conference in 1912 by a ruling that “failure to support” the proposals to be put in 1913 would be regarded as equivalent to opposition.” It became essential, therefore, for Hughes to get explicit authority from the Interstate Conference at Hobart in January 1912. Hughes was prevented by illness from attending this Conference, from which Holman also was absent, but his attitude and some of his difficulties were fully set out in a long letter to Fisher just before it began: 1¢.P.D., LXVIII, 5617 (19th November 1912). 2 Evatt, 290, 302; Joyner, Hist. Stud., No. 35 (November 1960), 303.

284

DEADLOCK

My dear Fisher,

I had hoped in spite of my ill-health that I should have been able to run over to Hobart for the Conference: but I find it out of the question. I have been staying up the coast for a few days but without deriving any benefit. I am beginning to lose hope. However enough of this business. Re the Conference. Very much depends upon what is decided and in particular with regard to the proposed alterations of the Constitution. On this head I think the only course for the Conference to pursue if it wants to help us is (a) To affirm its entire approval of our action in endeavouring to amend the Constitution.

(8) To express its regret that the people did not agree to this: and to set forth the opinion that the attitude of a section of the State labour parties

in regard to the referendum was most unfortunate and contributed largely to the rejection of the proposals.

(c) To question very strongly the proposal of Holman & Co to get the various State Premiers to give the Commonwealth permission to do certain things. The thing is either right or wrong: if right it is for the good of the whole people—in their State as well as Commonwealth capacity. If wrong it ought not to be done at all.

(p) In regard to the lines along which the proposed amendments of the Constitution should go:—This is THE crux of the whole thing. I suggest that the Conference confine itself to a broad general approval of such amendments of the Constitution as shall give us power to regulate for (1) New Protection (a) Fair and Reasonable wages for att workers. (b) Fair and reasonable prices to the consumer. (2) Regulation of Trusts and trade generally. (3) Nationalisation of industries. It is essential in my opinion that the Conference should not attempt to lay down the precise form of the questions. If they repeated the form used at the Referendum it would embarrass us.

If they departed from it it would amount to censure and look like dictation.

I am perfectly certain that unless the powers granted are wide, we had better leave the business alone. I am sure that the questions can be so framed that many of the objections urged against the proposals at the Referendum will be removed. You could say I as Attorney-General say most emphatically that powers limited as Holman proposes are not only useless but dangerous.

You could say that it was no part of our intention to interfere with the internal commerce of a State except where it was necessary to regulate and curb monopoly or prevent exploitation of the public by great corporations. 285

WILLIAM MOR: ‘Ss HUGHES

Urge upon the Conference in the strongest possible way the necessity of strengthening your hands: Tell them that while you do not know exactly how the questions will be framed yet it is certain that this will be so done as to make perfectly clear exactly what we want and at the same time exhibit our intention of keeping State Rights intact. I wish that I could have come over if only for a day or two but I’m afraid it is impossible:

If on receipt of this there is any point which occurs to you I should be glad to discuss it with you: If you had been able to come over to Sydney I should have been so pleased: But that I presume is not possible. If you can however wire me: you could go direct to Hobart from here. I hope you and yours are well and that the New Year will bring with it all kinds of good and pleasant things.

Mrs Hughes joins with me in wishing yourself and Mrs Fisher and family the best of good luck now and always.*

Not content with briefing Fisher, Hughes also wrote to the Conference secretary a letter in very similar terms to be read out to the Conference, which concluded:

Any attempt to limit the trade and commerce powers of the Commonwealth will be fatal. We want, and we must have, what Canada has got—the right to make laws relating to trade and commerce. Resist any attempt to attach any words to this to the end. You may say, if you like, that it is my settled opinion, supported by Messrs W. H. Irvine and Groom (vide debate, October rg10), that the Commonwealth must have full powers.*

The Conference, apparently without much discussion, included the resubmission of the rejected proposals of 1911 in the fighting platform, thus

giving Hughes the mandate he sought as against Holman, though not perhaps as much freedom in recasting the proposals as he would have liked.

The election offered little of special interest. Deakin had withdrawn from politics at the end of the Parliament, and his health did not permit him to take part in the campaign. The leadership was assumed by Cook, under whom the various elements of the Fusion, with a few exceptions, were united under the title of the Liberal Party. The two-party system had now had time to settle down, and both sides were better organized than ever before.” In the event, independents were completely eliminated, among the casualties being Sir William Lyne, who had refused to join the Fusion and had supported the Labor Party, and Sir Josiah Symon, who had fallen foul of the Liberal organization in South Australia.

The Labor Party stood mainly on its past record, having carried out most of its immediate platform so far as the Constitution would permit. In 38 Hughes to Fisher, 2nd January 1912 (Fisher Papers). 4 A.L.P. Fifth Interstate Conference, Hobart, 1912, Official Report, 26-7. 5 Round Table, Ill, 732-3; Nation Building, 101-2.

286

DEADLOCK

addition, Fisher promised to establish a Commonwealth line of steamers, and to introduce the referendum and recall. Cook, less inhibited, promised steps to increase migration, to control monopolies by means of publicity and regulation, to introduce a comprehensive system of contributory social insurance, and to hand over the question of the tariff to a non-political board of experts. At the same time he accepted, and claimed for the Liberals, all the national policies of the Labor Government.®

For Hughes a straight two-party contest in West Sydney offered no problem, and he embarked on a strenuous campaign covering four States, After opening his own campaign at Glebe on 2nd April, he left next day for a tour covering a number of Victorian centres, Adelaide, and the Riverina.

Returning to Sydney on 28th April, he spoke with Fisher at a rally at Sydney Town Hall on 29th April and at suburban meetings on other evenings. On 2nd May he set off for northern New South Wales and Queensland, returning, after being delayed by floods on the Hunter, on tgth May for the final fortnight of the campaign. The Labor Party, and Hughes in particular, concentrated mainly on the referendum proposals.

The policy of the Labour party [he is reported as saying] will be to deal with those issues and those great questions which, owing to the present position of the people under the Constitution, it was not able to do in the last Parliament. The great questions as they present themselves to the people of this country, and, indeed, of every other, are mainly three. They are the questions of industrial unrest, of the high cost of living, and the operations of trusts and combines. I think, if you look at these questions, you will see that they, as it were, condition an environment for every question which is of importance to the people.?

Against this broad background Hughes was able to indulge in a series of rhetorical displays and exchanges of verbal slapstick with Cook, the chief Liberal spokesman, and Wade, who contributed a long series of articles on “Why you should vote No” to the Herald. Both of these were old opponents, and neither was sufficiently agile to corner Hughes, or to avoid his skilled diversionary tactics.

Behind this controversy, however, lay the real issue of Hughes’s sincerity in his fulminations against the trusts. In the thinking of the Labor

Party generally on this topic there was indeed an ambivalence which, though not shared by Hughes, necessarily coloured many of his pronouncements. To many of the party, as to most radical liberals on the other side, monopoly was a term of abuse and trusts and combinations were in them-

selves evil. To the socialist they were evil because the quintessence of 6 Sawer, II1. 7 Speech at Granville, S.M.H., 1st May 1913.

287

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

capitalism; to the radical, because they were the antithesis of individualism. The liberal, logically, and many members of the Labor Party, for emotional

reasons, thought the cure was to “bust” the trusts into their component parts and so restore the nineteenth-century norm of small competitive business, and this was the end to which Deakin’s Australian Industries Preservation Act was directed. Hughes had never shared this view, and had never concealed his scepticism about the efhcacy, not only of the Act as drawn up by Deakin’s Government, but of any Act of this kind. In introducing amendments to the Act in 1g1o, designed to strengthen it in the light of the difficulties that had been experienced by the Department in preparing the case against the Coal Vend, he had declared: I am not one of those who believe in the efficacy of this kind of legislation.

I have said, over and over again, that whilst I am perfectly content to give anti-trust legislation a trial, I do not believe that it can be effective. Those

who approve of such legislation and the country generally are entitled, however, to demand for it a fair trial, and so far they have not had it.®

Hughes’s real objections to the Act, and to the approach it exemplified,

were two. In the first place, his reading of the experience of the United States convinced him that such legislation, however stringently drafted, could always be evaded by the trusts, and was therefore futile or, so far as it led them to conceal their operations, worse.” In the second, if such legislation were effective, it would produce effects the reverse of those that seemed to Hughes, as a believer in the inevitable development of public ownership and from his more immediate trade-union experience, to be desirable. Combina-

tion was not, in his view, bad in itself, and indeed might be a good thing, even in the short term, as making for greater efficiency and better working conditions than uncontrolled competition. Moreover, as some of his opponents were pointing out, “trust-busting” in the classic form could be applied to unions as well as to capitalists; thus, the Transport Workers’ Federation, in which he was at this time trying to bring together all the various unions concerned with the waterfront, or even the Waterside Workers’ Federation,

could be regarded as combinations in restraint of trade no less than combinations of employers such as the Coal Vend. Monopolies or combina-

tions might, however, abuse their powers, and the State must have the power to protect society against such abuse, which could be done effectively not by restoring the competitive chaos, but by holding over the combination the threat of nationalization. For the present, the threat would normally be 8 C.P.D., LIX, 6039 (11th November 1910).

9Cf. S.M.H., 30th April 1913: ‘There has been made apparent the utter futility of the present legislation. The proof is found in the experience of America. For twenty years they have had an Anti-Trust Act, more drastic than ours, and it has utterly failed to deal with trusts and combines.” S.M.H., 3rd May 1913: “‘Respecting trust and combines, Mr Hughes said that the American Standard Oil Company, although legally dissolved and legally non-existent, was for all practical purposes in a stronger position to-day than ever.”

288

DEADLOCK

enough; ultimately, Hughes believed, the inevitable trend of events would bring about public ownership—Federal, State, or municipal as might be appropriate. Meanwhile, combination and even monopoly were steps in this direction. Hence, when taxed with inconsistency, Hughes could reply:

It has been said . .. that I approve of combinations, and so I do. The party to which I belong thinks that the best combination is that of the people. I have always said that combinations are as much in advance of the cut-throat competition that existed before as machinery is an advance upon the stone age. All that is wanted is not to destroy combinations, but to control them. Let us take them over and control them.!°

However, since the argument in favour of combines as a step to socialism was electorally inexpedient, being calculated to antagonize precisely those fringe voters on whom Labor depended for victory, while the argument from American experience was too technical and recondite for platform use, Hughes from the outset based his campaign largely on the verdicts of the High Court in the Sugar and Vend cases. His reliance on the Vend case to

prove the need for constitutional change involved him in a controversy which, though irrelevant alike to his real convictions and to the real issues at stake, affords an interesting glimpse of his electioneering methods and of

the difference between a political and a legal approach to constitutional questions.

From the beginning, Hughes claimed the verdict in the Vend appeal as proof of the “futility” of the legal approach to monopolies as at present restricted by the Constitution. In doing this he was, as we have seen, leaving out several steps in his own argument for increased powers, and indulging

in a rather dangerous simplification. After a time Cook, prompted, it would seem, by E. P. Simpson, the Vend’s solicitor, started asking why

Hughes had not used his own 1910 amendments, which would have relieved the Commonwealth of the onus of proving either intent or public detriment, the two points on which, in the event, the prosecution had failed. Not having done this, Cook claimed, Hughes could not claim that the full resources of the existing law had been given a trial. Now it was true that the Vend case had not been based on the amended law, with the exception of a quite minor matter of procedure, but on the law of 1906, and for this very

good reasons can be suggested.** The 1910 amendments were not retrospective, and to prosecute under them would have involved giving up the evidence laboriously collected over eighteen months and starting fresh to prove a new series of offences committed since November rgio. Such a windfall as the handing in of the minute-books could hardly be expected to 10 §.M.H., 20th May 1913. Cf. also S.M.H., 3rd May 1913, and ‘‘Case for Labor” articles quoted in ch. xii above. 11 Jn the absence of the relevant records of the Attorney-General’s Department, which do not seem to have survived, these reasons can only be conjectural.

289

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

recur, nor were the Vend or its members, now thoroughly warned, likely to make or keep incriminating records. While the old prosecution might, under the 1910 Act, have been successful, there was no prospect that a new one, confined to events since that date, would be so. On the other hand, given the available documents, and especially the minute-books, there had seemed a good chance that even under the much more difficult conditions of the old Act a prosecution might succeed—as, at the first hearing, it did—or that the defendants might be induced to plead guilty, as the coal companies did consider doing on certain terms. It is unlikely that Hughes himself believed strongly in its success. His part was to authorize continuance of proceedings that had already been commenced, and we must assume him to have been advised by his own departmental officers and by Wise, already briefed as senior counsel before Hughes came into ofhce, all of whom were familiar with the intricacies of the case. Politically, Hughes could not lose whatever happened. If the prosecution had succeeded he would have gained prestige from it—leaving the combine substantially intact. If it failed, he could—as he did—claim this as proof that measures of a quite different kind were necessary, as he had always declared. On the other hand, to have intervened to stop a case which his officials and Wise thought they could win and on which eighteen months’ labour had already been expended in favour of one with extremely problematical prospects of success for which he would have carried full responsibility would have been politically fatal. But, in the excitement of the campaign and against an antagonist as little subtle as Cook, Hughes forgot or chose not to state the arguments for not invoking the amended Act, and instead claimed roundly that he had done so. On first encountering Cook’s charge, he retorted, “Mr Cook said ‘Why don’t you use the 1910 Act?’ The reason they did not use it was they

did use it.” This was followed by some banter about the source of Mr Cook’s information.’? Next day, at a large meeting in the Sydney Town Hall with Fisher as the main speaker, Hughes made a fuller statement: I come now to a particular point on which he dwells, and those hordes of paid emissaries of the trusts—whose existence and power Mr Cook denies— repeat every night; namely, that the Commonwealth has a power in the 1910 Anti-Trust Act amply sufficient to deal with trusts; that the Labour Government had deliberately refrained from using this Act; that if it did use it the

trusts could be effectually controlled. There are in this statement three assertions—

(1) That we did not use the 1g10 Act; (2) that we deliberately refrained from doing so in order to help the referenda campaign; (3) that the 1910 Act would make such a change in the law as would enable trusts to be controlled. Not one of these assertions is true. (1) The 1910 Act was used in the vend case. The Crown relied very strongly on that Act all through the vend case. 12 §.M.H., 29th April 1913.

290

DEADLOCK

(2) We not only did not refrain from using the 1910 Act, but having instructed the Crown Solicitor to prosecute within a few days of our taking office, under the 1906-7 Anti-Trust Act, and finding that the evidence at our disposal could not, or might not, be made available under that Act as it stood, we immediately introduced an amending Act to remedy this defect, and having passed the law we used it. This is something quite beyond the

comprehension of the fusion—to pass an act and then actually put it in force is for them an unthinkable thing. (3) We used the 1910 Act. We passed it for that purpose. But it is not true that it effected any material alteration in the substantive law. It was essentially a procedure Act. What it really did was to make it easier for the Crown to prosecute, to use documentary evidence in its possession, and to throw the onus—which the 1906 Act placed on the Crown—of proving detriment and unreasonable restraint, upon the defendants. It did no more than that. The material facts at issue remained

the same. The alteration of the law had only thrown the onus of proving them from one party to the other. That being so, and the evidence at the disposal of the crown in the vend case being sufficient in the Court below to prove detriment and unreasonable restraint, and in the High Court the same

facts—for these were not in dispute in the appeal—were held not to be detrimental to the public or prove an unreasonable restraint. It is clear, therefore, that the Crown had produced all the evidence at its disposal, that the

facts proved were all that it could produce, and that these failed, that the tg10 Act could not have helped us in that case.**

This was forceful debating, leaving Cook pulverized at every point. Cook was reduced to flat contradiction—the word of one politician against another, and of the outsider against the insider at that. The crowd in the Town Hall, or the mass of the electorate, were neither anxious nor able to

check the legal points for themselves. They went away convinced, as Hughes himself, for quite other reasons, was convinced, that the existing law could not control trusts. Whether it could or not remains to this day unknown—there has never been a prosecution under the Act as amended in 1910. Unfortunately, if his conclusion was sound, almost all Hughes’s points

were untrue. In terms of the political platform this was a side issue, and it was not pursued. For the legal record, judgment was given in the somewhat

calmer atmosphere of Phillip Street chambers. Richard Teece, a young Sydney barrister, wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald: In his speech at the Town Hall on Tuesday night Mr Hughes repeated his assertion that the coal-owners and the shipping companies had been prosecuted under the rg10, and not under the 1906 Act... . When the protagonists of the two great parties now before the public differ so strongly on a subject of such vital importance, the only way to ascertain which is speaking the truth, and whose utterances are to be received with confidence, is to examine 13 §.M.H., 30th April 1913. 291 U

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

the facts of the case. This the writer has done. He has before him the Australian Industries Preservation Acts of 1906 and rgro, respectively, and the report of the Vend case in the official law reports. The material sections of the Acts in question are as follows:—Section 4 of the Act of 1906 makes it an offence to enter into a contract or engage in a combination with intent to restrain trade to the detriment of the public. Section 7 of the same Act makes

it an offence to combine or conspire to monopolise trade with intent to control to the detriment of the public the supply or price of any service or commodity.

The Act of 1910 is much more stringent. That Act makes it an offence to enter into a contract or engage in a combination in restraint of trade, irrespective of any intent to restrain trade and without proving any detriment to the public. It also makes it an offence to combine or conspire to monopolise trade irrespective of any intent to control prices or supply, and regardless of any detriment to the public. It will thus be seen that the 1910 Act created new offences—combinations in restraint of trade without any guilty intent, and combination to monopolise trade without any intent to control prices or supplies, and irrespective of any detriment to the public. And while defendants charged with combining in restraint of trade might prove as a defence that their acts were not to the detriment of the public, no such defence is open under the rg10 Act to defendants charged with combining to monopolise trade. Detriment or no detriment, they are guilty of an offence if they combine to monopolise any part of trade or commerce. Incidentally, this proves the absolute falsity of Mr Hughes’s statement on Tuesday evening, that the

tgto Act did not effect any material alteration in the law, and that it was only a procedure act. It effected very material alterations, for it created offences which were before unknown to the law. In the opening passages of his judgement in the Vend case (see Common-

wealth Law Reports, vol. 15, p. 72) the Chief Justice points out that the companies had been convicted by Mr Justice Isaacs of offences against the provisions of the Act of 1906 (not rgro, be it observed). That the proccedings had been taken under the 1906 Act, and that Act only, is made abundantly clear by a perusal of the judgement. For the grounds on which the High Court set aside the conviction by Mr Justice Isaacs were that the Crown had not proved any intent to restrain trade to the detriment of the public, or any intent to monopolise the interstate trade to the like detriment. Now, if the companies had been prosecuted under the 1910 Act those reasons

for their decision given by the High Court would have been absolutely immaterial, for under that Act combinations are criminal irrespective of any intent, etc., without the necessity of establishing any detriment to the public. Mr Hughes, as is well known, carries no great guns as a lawyer, but he is at any rate by virtue of his position the chief law adviser of the Crown. And he cannot be so hopelessly ignorant of the laws he has been administering, or of the proceedings he has instituted, as to escape the charge of deliberate misrepresentation in this respect. The tacts above quoted prove conclusively 292

DEADLOCK

that the Coal Vend and the shipping companies were prosecuted for alleged

offences, not under the rg1o Act, but under the 1906 Act; and yet Mr Hughes, who must know this, goes up and down the country saying that in the Vend case they used the 1910 Act and failed; and so advocates the grant of increased powers to the Commonwealth on the ground that the Government has used against the trusts the powers it has already got and failed to remedy the abuses aimed at. What is worse, he actually accuses Mr Cook and Mr Wade of misrepresentation in this matter, when it is he and not they who are guilty of that charge. On Tuesday, as we have shown, he added to the sum of his offending by saying that the 1910 Act was only a procedure Act, and did not effect any material alteration in the law. ... Mr Hughes surely does not pretend to be so ignorant of the law, for the introduction and passing of which he was responsible, as to expect us to believe that he made that

statement honestly and truthfully. Mr Hughes, in fact, reminds us of the footballer guilty of foul play who, to draw attention from his own unfairness, appeals loudly to the umpire against the alleged foul play of his opponent. Both on the football field and in politics those tactics often succeed. But after this exposure the public will, we hope, place no confidence in Mr Hughes’s statements, no matter how emphatically they are made, or how often they are repeated.!4

To Teece’s, and Hughes’s, professional colleagues, such a letter must have been conclusive. Hughes, judging no doubt that elections were won on broad issues emotionally stated, rather than on technical details argued in somewhat pedantic language, completely ignored Teece’s letter and set off on his tour of Queensland. At no stage, though he continued on occasion

to bandy words on the subject with Cook, did he answer or refer to Teece’s argument. When the count of votes was finally complete, a somewhat paradoxical result emerged. In the House of Representatives, the Liberals had a majority of one; in the Senate Labor strengthened its majority from eight to twenty-

two, leaving a lone remnant of seven Liberals. The result was summed up as follows: ... the electors have declared to the Government: 1. We will not allow you to remain in office and have therefore taken away your majority in the House of Representatives. 2. But we will not give your opponents a working majority with which to reverse your policy. 3. We will, further, strengthen your power in the Senate, so that your party may prevent your opponents from legislating against your wiill.15

For five exciting days it looked as if the electors might complete the paradox by granting the powers sought by Labor, which the Liberals had 14 §.M.H., 1st May 1913, 8. 15 Round Table, Ill, 725-6.

293

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

so loudly proclaimed unnecessary or pernicious. In the final count, however, all the proposals were defeated, though this time only in three States and by a much smaller majority of the total votes than before. In every case, in fact, the majority fell far short of the number of informal votes, and on the proposal to give powers over “trusts, combinations and monopolies in relation to the production, manufacture, or supply of goods, or the supply of services” the total majority against was as little as 8,612 out of a poll of 2,030,770.'°

Hughes’s personal majority, in an electorate increased by almost a third,

was the largest he had yet recorded, 17,658 votes against 7,119 for his opponent John Sutton, who is otherwise unknown. Informal votes were 1,406, over three times the previous highest figure, due, perhaps, to the confusion created by having no less than eight ballot papers to deal with. That there was no lack of interest is shown by the fact that 64°6 per cent of those enrolled voted, a higher percentage than at any previous election. At first Fisher, supported by a majority of his Cabinet, favoured meeting the new Parliament, in the hope of persuading the Governor-General that their chance of governing effectively was as good as Cook’s. It was, as he afterwards claimed, Hughes who stood alone against this course, pointing out that if they met the House as the Government, they would be responsible for providing a Speaker, whereas if they resigned before the House met the

responsibility would fall on the Liberals, whose majority would thus disappear, leaving the House deadlocked and the Government dependent on the casting vote of the Speaker to force through even the most trivial measure. With the Senate against it, no Government could survive long in such circumstances.’’ Fisher was won over, and announced his resignation on 24th June 1913. There was a certain irony in the note Cook wrote to acknowledge Hughes’s congratulations:

Thanks, many, for your kind note. You say there are stormy times ahead. In Wales they used to sing and perhaps do yet— “For we'll stand the storm It will not be very long.” I shall sleep as much as you will let me.'®

Since he was obviously powerless to carry out any constructive policy, Cook resolved to try to secure as soon as possible a double dissolution, the

remedy prescribed by the Constitution, under certain conditions, for a deadlock between the two Houses. He therefore put in the forefront of his 16 For the text of the proposals and the details of the voting, see G. S. Knowles (ed.), The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Canberra, 1936), 229-35; or Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers, 1913, Il, 115. 17 Browne, 91, seemingly based on information from Hughes.

18 J, Cook to W. M. Hughes, 27th July 1913 (Hughes Papers). 294

DEADLOCK

programme two measures calculated to win sympathy outside the House and to ensure rejection by the Senate—a Bill to restore postal voting, which

had been abolished by the previous Government, and one to prohibit preference to unionists in government employment. While these measures

were proceeding on their way, Labor gave no quarter. They harried the Government constantly with interjections, points of order, and motions of censure, and by refusing pairs compelled every Government member to be continually in attendance. In such tactics Hughes was in his element and, relieved of the responsi-

bility of office, he could again make full use of his gift of phrase. The assumption by the Fusion of the title of “Liberal”, he attacked with biting scorn. So far from being “the lineal descendant of the great Liberal party of England” the party opposite was “a direct result of a fusion between two parties that for many years in this country achieved whatever notoriety they had by violently, consistently and persistently abusing each other... . It has no claims whatever to a legitimate ancestry.”*” The policy of the Government was a sham. “There has never been a Government which, in such a short time, so completely violated its pledges to the people... . They have exposed to every man who is not purblind the insincerity of their professions and the hollowness of their actions.”*? Their programme was ...the programme of the great powers that be in this country, and against which the Labour party has been, and is now, arrayed. In the battle that has been fought, but not yet won... the battle between capital and labour—this is the programme of those who stand behind honorable members on the other side. It is a programme that pleases and helps those powers, and does nothing else for any human being in the country.*!

On the second reading of the Government’s principal measure, the Government Preference Prohibition Bill, he said: The honorable and learned gentleman calmly tells us that, for years, unionism has been getting more and more political, its objective being Syndicalism. That is like saying that, for years, the people have been getting more Christian in profession and practice, their objective being hell! I would

that I could apply that to my honorable friends opposite, wishing them a rapid journey and God speed.... Freedom! Freedom sounds well on the lips of these gentlemen, saturated as they are with the events of the past week in this House. Freedom of action and freedom of speech! The little tin gods must laugh when they hear such speeches as these from such men... . Why, sir, there are limits even to the idiocy of the human mind; and I 19 C.P.D., LXX, 149 (14th August 1913). 20 C.P.D., LXXI, 2951-2 (7th November 1913). 21 C.P.D., LXX, 162 (14th August 1913).

295

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

truly am at a loss to understand how honorable gentlemen can have introduced such a measure as this. ... This is not a principle; it is a pretext, is less than nothing.”

The proposal by Littleton Groom, now Minister for Customs, of a Royal Commission on the activities of “the alleged trust in connection with the meat industry” was received in a tone of light-hearted banter: It is no more necessary than it would be to appoint a Royal Commission to ascertain whether fire burns, or water, in sufficient quantities, drowns... . The Royal Commissions Act is just about as effective for getting evidence as would be the attempt to gather the constellation Hercules into a butterfly net.73

But if Hughes was content to act the gadfly in Parliament, he was still extremely active in industrial matters. The substitution of Wade’s Industrial Disputes Act, with its restriction of the Court to purely legal questions and its system of separate wages boards for each industry or group of industries in place of the State Arbitration Act of 1901 when the latter expired in 1908 had been unpopular with the unions, and was not made more popular by Wade’s coercive use of it against the coal-miners in 1909. Even before the old Act had expired, the

Sydney Wharf Labourers’ Union, no doubt on Hughes’s advice, had registered with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, though it continued for a time to work under its State awards.“* Since Hughes was required by his political duties to spend an increasing amount of time in Melbourne, where also the Interstate Steamship Owners’ Association had its headquarters, he turned naturally to negotiation at the national level, with a view to

substituting uniform conditions in all Australian ports for the mass of local agreements by which the industry had hitherto been regulated. Hughes’s policy of direct negotiation, with the Arbitration Court in the background if necessary, was successful for some time in securing for the

wharf labourers a share in the rising prosperity of the period. The first national agreement was that of October 1907 by which the interstate companies conceded an overtime rate of 1s. 8d. In July 1909 Hughes negotiated

an agreement with the interstate owners “doing away with freedom of contract”, and eighteen months later a further conference secured “very good increases and conditions for the whole of the branches”. Yet another

agreement was concluded on 6th October 1911 and registered with the Commonwealth Court. In all these negotiations Hughes was the principal agent for the Federation, and its minutes contain frequent references to his interviews and conferences with the owners, and his services in securing 22. C.P.D., LXXII, 3104-10 (12th November 1913). 23 C.P.D., LXXIII, 726 (7th May 1914). 24S,.W.L.U. Minutes, 17th June 1907.

296

DEADLOCK

the 1910 agreement were recognized by his colleagues on the executive by the presentation of a piece of plate, suitably inscribed.” In November 1913 the existing agreements expired, and the Federation submitted a new log, embodying very substantial increases. This was rejected by the owners, and after a compulsory conference convened by Mr Justice Higgins had broken down, the case came before him for hearing. Hughes’s appearance for the Waterside Workers’ Federation was challenged under the amendment to the Arbitration Act which he had himself introduced as Attorney-General, prohibiting the appearance before the Court of barristers or solicitors, but Higgins ruled that he was a bona fide union official, and entitled to appear in that capacity. “He might well be president even if he were no barrister; indeed he was president before he became a barrister. It

is more than probable that it is not his position as a barrister which has given him his standing as president—it would be detrimental to him.” The case involved a complete survey of the industry and its conditions on an Australia-wide basis, and an immense amount of work was entailed in its preparation, familiar as Hughes was with the issues. The hearing itself occupied fifteen sittings in Melbourne and eight in Sydney, and resulted in the fixing of a minimum rate of ts. gd. an hour, with overtime in the same proportion as in the existing agreements. In his judgment Higgins gave special attention to the problem, which Hughes had several times argued before the New South Wales Court, of a “fair and reasonable” wage for casual workers. This award, together with one regulating working

conditions which Higgins handed down after a further long hearing, delayed by his visit to Europe and then by the outbreak of war, on 13th December 1915, provided a uniform basis for the industry over the whole of Australia, and formed a fitting conclusion to Hughes’s work in this field.*® There is, however, some evidence that the frequent absences in Melbourne entailed by Hughes’s political and ministerial duties, together with the illness

of S. T. Harrison, his faithful lieutenant since the beginning of the union, somewhat weakened his personal ascendancy. Occasionally a militant minority, with some I.W.W. associations, was able to challenge his policies, as when in 1912 a resolution of protest against compulsory military training was carried.2’ Through the Transport Workers’ Federation Hughes had been able to dissuade the Sydney wharf labourers from taking part in the Brisbane general strike of 1912, but the men continued restive.*? A number of the older leaders, too, were jealous of the influence of the Waterside

Workers’ Federation, in which, under the Commonwealth Arbitration 25 §.M.H., 1st November 1907; W.W.F. Minutes, 8th July 1909, 23rd December 1910; 6 C.A.R. (1912), 4; W.W.F. Minutes, 21st February 1911.

26 8 C.A.R. (1914), 53 ff. (on Hughes’s appearance, 60); 9 C.A.R. (1915); J. Healy, “Brief History”, 16-28. 27S.W.L.U. Minutes, 3rd April 1912. 28 Bulletin, 22nd February 1912, 24.

297

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Court, the Sydney union was merged as a mere branch. These views were shared, at least in part, by Edward Hillyer, a veteran who had been president of the branch since 1911, and by J. Woods, who in 1912 defeated Harrison for the key post of financial secretary. When, accordingly, a bitter strike broke out on the New Zealand waterfront at the end of October 1913, there was widespread sympathy for the strikers in Sydney, the more because the strike had every appearance of having been forced on the New Zealand unions by the Union Steamship Company to break up their recently formed combination. Early in November the Sydney wharf labourers, at a regular weekly meeting, resolved to refuse to handle cargo consigned to or from New Zealand until the strike was

settled. “Their fight is our fight,’ Woods was reported as saying, “and whether we wanted it or not we are in it now, and will have to see it through.”*” In this stand they were supported by the “Labour Federation of Australasia, New South Wales Branch”, a newly formed body under the presidency of J. H. Catts, M.H.R., secretary of the New South Wales Railway and Tramway Employees’ Federation, who, as secretary to the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, was in close contact with Hughes. The Federation, one of the many attempts to provide a permanent organization for the Interstate Trades Unions Congress, claimed to represent 38,000 unionists in

New South Wales, but, apart from the railwaymen, was by no means securely established.*°

For about a fortnight the waterside remained outwardly quiet, the boycott being confined to New Zealand cargoes, which the owners made no attempt to work in Sydney. Then the trouble extended unofficially to other ships owned by the Union Company running to Tasmania and the Pacific islands. By 27th November eight ships were idle, and the dispute seemed likely, if it spread further, to involve railwaymen and coal-miners as well as the various maritime unions. Hughes had been all this time in Melbourne, where Parliament was still

in session, but this new threat brought him to Sydney, following a joint meeting in Melbourne of the executives of the Federation of Labour and the Transport Workers’ Federation.** His method was the same as in 190g. On 29th November he took the chair, as President of the Waterside Workers’

Federation, at a special conference of almost all the unions likely to be involved, including, besides the various maritime unions, the Federation of Labour, the Australian Workers’ Union, and the coal-miners of the three New South Wales fields and of Victoria. All of these except the miners, whose federation had not been re-formed since 1909, were represented at the federal level, and the seriousness of the occasion was reflected in the 29 §$.M.H., 7th November 1913.

30 §.M.H., 6th November 1913. 31 °§.M.H., 25th November 1913.

298

DEADLOCK

number of Federal politicians present—Senator Guthrie of the Seamen’s Federation, Messrs Laird Smith and Bamford of the Waterside Workers’ executive, and Catts, as well as Hughes himself. The Australian Workers’ Union was represented by E. Grayndler and the Northern Colliery Employees’ Federation, which at the time was undergoing a reaction from the leadership of Bowling, by D. Watson. These men were all moderates, and anxious to prevent the extension of the strike, while endeavouring to put pressure on the employers in New Zealand to submit the dispute to arbitration. While they were meeting, however, the wharf labourers were growing increasingly impatient. The unofficial strike was extending to some oversea ships, as well as those originally affected, and a stop-work meeting was called for 2nd December. This meeting was addressed by Hughes, Senator Guthrie, Watson, and Grayndler, and though “protracted, turbulent and discordant”, finally resolved to confine the boycott to ships to or from New Zealand, as urged by the special Conference. After the meeting, on his way to the union office, Hughes was subjected to considerable heckling by angry members of the

rank and file.** While this represented a victory for the policy of the Conference, the rank and file continued, in practice, to treat all the Union Company ships as “black”, and at the ordinary weekly meeting of the union the following evening feeling again ran high. The meeting, addressed in favour of moderation by Senator Guthrie and A. Cooper of the seamen, Kirkwood of the southern miners, and Rosser, the secretary of the Federation of Labour, finally confirmed the resolution of the previous day. Woods,

interviewed after the mecting, agreed that the Conference policy had been supported, but added, “I cannot say what they will do to-morrow with the Island and Tasmanian boats. So far as the meeting decided, these are to be worked.” Earlier in the day, a similar motion had been carried at a mass meeting of seamen presided over by Guthrie and addressed by Hughes.”

Interviewed by the Press, Hughes gave an emphatic denial to the suggestion that the strike was merely being staved off until after the State

elections, which were to be held on 6th December. “Elections or no elections,” he said, “we would have acted in exactly the same way. We are not dealing with industrial powers, but with men of very strong convictions and individuality. The community may rest perfectly assured that everything conducive to industrial peace is being done, and will be done.’**

So far as meetings and resolutions went, support for the Conference policy was unanimous. This time there was no Bowling to lead the opposi-

tion in the Conference itself. But this was not enough—it remained to enforce the decision on the actual wharfs. The struggle was sharp but short. 32 §.M.H., 3rd December 1913. 33 §.M.H., 4th December 1913. 34 §.M.H., 4th December 1913.

299

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Aware that the officials and a strong section of the members of the Sydney

union were out of sympathy with its policy, the Conference authorized Hughes, in his capacity of President of the Waterside Workers’ Federation, to call upon the officers and members of the local branch to supply labour in accordance with its resolutions, and to suspend forthwith from the union any member refusing to obey.” This edict, as perhaps it was meant to do, provoked open defiance from Hillyer. He himself, he said, had refused to “do anything so despicable as to induce members to go back to work by going down to the wharf himself

and putting his hands to a sling or barrel”. The threat of suspension he described as “absolute bluff’, and said that no one knew this better than Hughes. If, he added, Hughes was speaking for the Waterside Workers’ Federation, what were all the other unions there for? If it was a combined conference, what authority had it over the Sydney Wharf Labourers’ Union? Hughes’s reply was a masterpiece of smooth speaking. I am sorry that Mr Hillyer as a unionist and president of this branch of the Waterside Workers’ Federation [Hillyer had used the name of the old autonomous Sydney Wharf Labourers’ Union], should have made such a statement... . He speaks for himself alone, or at most for a mere handful of extremists of his own sort. On the other hand, I speak with authority and on behalf of 200,000 unionists, whose chosen representatives have specially clothed me with authority in this matter. ... Conference stands for militant unionism in this country. It also stands for sane unionism, and it is determined to assert the claims of unionism in this country to be so considered.

The question now at issue, however, was not the authority of Conference, but the authority of the branch itself, which both at a special mass meeting and at the following ordinary meeting had by overwhelming majorities endorsed the Conference policy. I hope that members of the union will not allow unionism in Australia to be shipwrecked—as it most assuredly will—by this handful of irreconcilables, who respect no authority, and who, while talking about the possibilities of industrial organization, repudiate and defy the principle of solidarity upon which unionism absolutely depends.®®

But Hughes was well aware that this challenge could not be met by words alone. The next morning he went down himself to the wharves, and one ship was loaded “under the benevolent but autocratic eye of Mr Hughes himself”. The danger of extension was over. “Had not Mr Hughes induced

the belligerents in Sydney to limit their declaration of war, there is no knowing what the next few days might have brought in their train.’3? 35 §.M.H., 6th December 1913. 36 §.M.H., 8th December 1913.

37 §.M.H., gth December 1913 (leading article).

300

DEADLOCK

The control of the Conference having been established, it only remained

for it to bring such influence as it could to bear on the New Zealand employers and Government in favour of arbitration, and to collect money from its constituent unions for the relief of distress caused by the strike. Hughes, after moving a series of motions aimed at continuing the Conference organization on a permanent basis, returned to Melbourne.** The Conference continued in session under Grayndler as vice-president until 19th December, when, the strike having been declared off in New Zealand, the embargo was withdrawn and the waterfront restored to normal. This was Hughes’s last major intervention in the industrial sphere, and, indeed, the last large-scale operation of the type of federated union organization which he had pioneered in the Waterside Workers’ Federation and for which he had consistently worked since, claiming to speak for large bodies of unionists through executives dominated by politicians, moderate by force of the numbers and complexity of interests involved, and somewhat removed from day-by-day industrial problems, but sincere in their belief that the interests of labour generally were better served by arbitration, negotiation, and political pressure than by direct action. In their day such organizations had achieved much, but the very successes of the old unionism

and the place of the unions under the arbitration laws of the Commonwealth and States were combining to do away with their reliance on political leaders and to produce a new type of union official, to whom the industrial

side of the movement was a full-time job, and whose attitudes were determined wholly by industrial relations. This final effort for industrial peace, though less spectacular than some of his earlier ones, serves to emphasize the leading place Hughes held in the councils of the union movement as well as in politics at this time. To the end of his life, he took a special pride in the illuminated address which the three major participants, the Waterside Workers’ Federation, the Australian Workers’ Union, and the Australasian Federation of Labour, presented to him on ist January 1914. After reciting the decisions of the Conference, it went on: As a result, Australia did its duty to our New Zealand comrades, and a mighty industrial conflagration was prevented. Your life is a long record of big achievements for the Australian Labor Movement, both politically and industrially; but your prompt grappling with the New Zealand trouble, the success with which you welded together into an effective force the units of Australian unions in the area of industrial contagion, is probably the most brilliant of all your great achievements.

Cook’s plans to procure a double dissolution in due course reached their

goal, and on 5th June 1914 he announced that the Governor-General, Sir 38 §.M.H., 11th December 1913.

301

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Ronald Munro Ferguson, who had succeeded Lord Denman only a fortnight before, had granted the dissolution of both Houses. The election was set for 5th September. Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, the war clouds were gathering. Just a year earlier, a young friend travelling in Europe had written to

Hughes, after urging him to look after his health and extolling at length the charms of travel in Italy and Switzerland: “My travels have intensified my faith if that were possible; but I intensely realize, as never before, the urgent and immediate and vital necessity of arming ourselves effectively for the Armageddon which is surely approaching. God knows I'm no alarmist, but neither am I a dweller in a fool’s paradise.” When the Armageddon came, Hughes, better than any other man in Australia, was prepared for it. At fifty-one he was at the height of his powers.

He had fought his way up from obscurity and penury in the political underworld of the “wild men of Sydney” in the nineties and in the industrial

| jungle of the waterfront, where no quarter was either given or expected. Sydney’s “Rocks”, the native home of the larrikin push, were in his electorate. The tiny, frail schoolmaster of 1884 had become hard, ruthless, opportunist. Yet he had battled with much success to improve conditions for the social underdog, both in politics and through his union. Office and a happy marriage had mellowed him, made him smoother and more responsible, but they had not diminished his driving force and self-confidence nor had they

yet caused him to lose the common touch. Unlike many of his political opponents, he had always been a fervent Australian nationalist; unlike many of his own party, he had a passionate belief in the British Empire and a practical interest in defence. Since the French prize of his schooldays, and especially since his English visit of 1907, he had been aware of the wider world beyond Australia, and increasingly conscious of the threat it would some day present to the social policies in which he believed no less firmly than his more optimistic or more short-sighted fellows. So far, the highest

prize of all had passed him by. The Great War brought him the opportunity for which no one else was so fitted by training, experience, and character.

39 Edward O’Donoghue to Hughes, 21st July 1913 (Hughes Papers).

302

Select Bibliography I. Unpublished Sources The HuGHEs Papers are the personal collection of the late W. M. Hughes, now deposited with the National Library of Australia, to which, by courtesy of the Perpetual Trustee Company of Sydney, as Mr Hughes’s executors, and of the National Librarian, Mr H. L. White, I have been allowed unrestricted access for the purpose of this biography. These comprise correspondence, oficial papers, newspaper cuttings and other miscellaneous material. For the period covered by this volume the collection, though containing much of value, is relatively sparse and disconnected. The political correspondence and papers have been provisionally arranged in chronological order, and are cited by writer and date. There are three scrap-books of newspaper cuttings wholly or in part from this period (“News Cuttings, Books 1-3”) and one covering the English visit of 1916 which contains many references to Hughes’s early life [| Cuttings, 1916]. The FISHER PAPERS, the private papers of Andrew Fisher, are still held by

his family. By courtesy of the late Mrs Fisher these were examined for me in London and photographic copies made of a number of letters by or relating to Hughes. References are to these copies, identified by writer and date. The Sydney Branch of the Waterside Workers’ Federation, formerly the SYDNEY WHARF LABOURERS UNION, possesses an extensive and carefully pre-

served set of records, which I was generously allowed to consult by Mr Tom Nelson, the Branch Secretary. These include the Minutes of the Union, and later of the Branch, for 1896-7 and from 1899 on. [S.W.L.U. Minutes]; also a placard “History of the Sydney Branch, 1872-1920”; a transcript of evidence presented for the Union before the New South Wales Arbitration Court on 30th May and 8th-gth June 1910; and a duplicated “History of Stevedoring in Australia as disclosed in reports of industrial tribunals, Royal Commissions, etc.” submitted by the Federation to the Stevedoring Committee. By courtesy of the late Mr Jim Healy, General Secretary of the warersipE WORKERS FEDERATION, I was given access to the Minute Book of the Feder-

ation from its inception in 1902 [W.W.F. Minute Book]. I made use also of Mr Healy’s duplicated “Brief History of the Australian Waterfront and the Waterside Workers’ Unions”. Occasional reference was made to the KING O'MALLEY PAPERS in the National Library of Australia. The coMMONWEALTH ARCHIVES were consulted for material relating to

Hughes’s work in the Watson and second Fisher Governments (1904 and IQI0-I3).

Other unpublished material consulted in the National Library of Australia and in the Mitchell Library, Sydney, is acknowledged in the footnotes. 303

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Il. Unpublished Theses The following unpublished theses have been consulted by courtesy of the

authors and, in the case of Dr Joyner’s thesis, of Mr Henry Mayer of the University of Sydney:

Joyner, C., “Extension of Commonwealth Powers—Parties, Interest Groups and Personalities: 1911, 1913 and 1919” (Ph.D., University of Florida, 1957). Nairn, N. B., “Some Aspects of the Development of the Labour Movement in New South Wales, 1870-1900” (Sydney, M.A., 1955). O’Farre.t, P. J., “H. E. Holland and the Labour Movement in Australia and New Zealand” (Ph.D., Australian National University, 1960).

Ill. Newspapers and Periodicals This list includes only items of which the file has been regularly consulted for some part of the period (dates given are those of publication, not of the part consulted). Where reference has been made to specific articles only, acknowledgement is made in the footnotes. Age, The. Melbourne, 1854-++. Argus, The. Melbourne, 1846-1957. AustraLtiA: Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Commonwealth Arbitration Reports: a report of cases decided and awards made. Melbourne, 1908-+-. [z C.A.R. (1905-7), etc.] AustrauiA: High Court, The Commonwealth Law Reports: cases determ-

ined in the High Court of Australia. Melbourne, 1905-+. [1 C.L.R. (1903-4), etc. ]

AustraLiA: Parliament, Parliamentary Debates. Melbourne, 1901-+. [C.P.D.] Australian Journal of Politics and History. Brisbane, 1956-+-. [A.].P.H.] AUSTRALIAN Lagpor Party: Federal Conference, Official Reports. Various places, 1903-++. [A.L.P. Fed. Conf. | Conferences were held in 1902, 1905, 1908 and 1912. That of 1902 was called the Australian Labor Conference, and came

later to be referred to as the Second Inter-State Conference (the unofficial conference of 1900 being counted as the first). In addition to its rather meagre ofhcial report, a fuller report of proceedings was published by the Worker Trustees, Sydney, and it is this I have used

(there is a photostat copy in the National Library of Australia). Subsequent conferences were styled respectively the Third, Fourth and Fifth Commonwealth Labor Conference. Australian Workman, The. Sydney, 1890-7. Bulletin, The. Sydney, 1880-++.

Call, The: published by the Australian National Defence League, New South Wales Division. Sydney, 1906-10. 304

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Daily Telegraph, The (from 1883 to 1927, The Telegraph). Sydney, 1879+. [D.T.] Democrat, The. Sydney, 1891.

Historical Studies: Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne, 1940-++. [ Hist. Stud. | New Order, The. Sydney, 1&94.

New South Wares: Arbitration Court, The Industrial Arbitration Reports and Records. Sydney, 1903+. [1 N.S.W.A.R. (1902), etc.] New Soutu Watss: Parliament, Parliamentary Debates, Series I. Sydney, 1879-1900. [N.S.W.P.D.| Round Table, The: a quarterly review of the politics of the British Empire. London, 1g10-+. Royat AusrratiAN Historica Socinty, Journal and Proceedings. Sydney, rgo1-+. [/.R.4.HS. | Sydney Morning Herald, The. Sydney, 1831-+-. [S.M.H.]| Times, The. London, 1785+. Worker, The. Sydney, 1892-+-. (After 6th November 1913, The Australian Worker.)

IV. Books, Pamphlets, and Articles This list includes all books etc. referred to in the footnotes to two or more chapters. Where references are confined to one chapter, they are acknow-

ledged in the footnotes only. In all cases, the full title is given in the first reference, and only the author’s surname or a short title in subsequent references. I have listed here also all books and pamphlets (but not articles) by or entirely about Hughes, biographies and autobiographies of his political colleagues, and a few works which, though not expressly cited, have been of special use. I have not included standard reference books.

For good general bibliographies, see Cambridge History of the British Empire, VII, pt. 1, for books published to 1930, and G. Greenwood (ed.), Australia, for those published from 1930 to 1952. Avustratia: Royal Commission on the Navigation Bill, Report ... together with appendices and minutes of evidence. (P.P. No. 30/1906.) Melbourne, 1906. [R.C. on Navigation Bill.] Buack, G., A History of the New South Wales Political Labor Party from its Conception until 1917. 7 parts. Sydney, 1926-9.

Browne, FP. C., They Called him Billy: a Biography of the Rt. Hon. W.M. Hughes, P.C., M.P. Sydney, 1945. Canbridge History of the British Empire, volume VII, pt. 1: Australia: ch. xv, “The Federation Movement and the Founding of the Commonwealth” by Sir Robert Garran; ch. xvii, ““The Commonwealth” by W. K. Hancock. Cambridge, 1933. [C.H.B.E., VII, i.] 395

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Catts, D., James Howard Catts, M.H.R.: foreword by W. M. Hughes. Sydney, 1953.

Carts, D., King O’Malley, Man and Statesman. Sydney, 1957. Cuivvg, V. G., How Labour Governs: a Study of Workers’ Representation in Australia. London, 1923. CockEriLy, G., Scribblers and Statesmen: introduction by W. M. Hughes. Melbourne, 1944. (The author was the Federal Parliamentary reporter for the Age during the first decade of Federation.)

Cocuian, Sir Timothy A., Labour and Industry in Australia from the first Settlement in 1788 to the Establishment of the Commonwealth. 4 vols. London, 1918. CoNFERENCE between representatives of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand on the subject of merchant

shipping legislation, Report. (P.P. No. 15/1907, 2nd Session.) Melbourne, 1907. [Merchant Shipping Conference. | Crisp, L. F., The Australian Federal Labour Party, 1go1-1951. London, 955° Deakin, A., The Federal Story: the Inner History of the Federal Cause: ed. Herbert Brookes. Melbourne, 1944. Evatt, H. V., Australian Labour Leader: the Story of W. A. Holman and the Labour Movement. Sydney, 1940. (References are to this, the first, edition.)

GoLuan, R., Radical and Working Class Politics: a Study of Eastern Australia, 1850-1910. Melbourne, 1960.

Greenwoop, G. (ed.), dustralia: a Social and Political History. Sydney, 1955+

Hiccins, H. B., Essays and Addresses on the Australian Commonwealth Bill. Melbourne, 1900.

Hucues, W. M., The Case for Labor. Sydney, 1gto. Hucues, W. M., Compulsory Military Training from the Point of View

of an Australian Labour Leader: an Address delivered ... at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, on the 24th April, 1907. London, 1910.

Hucues, W. M., Crusts and Crusades: Tales of Bygone Days. Sydney, 1947:

Hucues, W. M., Labour in Power: the Australian Government and its work ... reprinted from “The Daily Chronicle”. Melbourne, 1913. Hucues, W. M., Policies and Potentates. Sydney, 1950. Hucres, W. M., and Dick, W. T., Federation as Proposed by the Adelaide Convention. Sydney, 1897. Lane, J. T., 1 Remember. Sydney, 1956. McCrisrat, T. W., Sensational Exposure of W. M. Hughes, P.C., Prime

Minister of Australia: the Windsor Eviction ... Read the Startling Evidence! Sydney, 1923. 306

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin, A. W., and Warptez, P., Members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, 1856-1901. Canberra, 1959 Merchant Shipping Legislation: Report of a Conference. See Conference. Murpocu, W., Alfred Deakin: a Sketch. London, 1923. Nation Building in Australia: the Life and Work of Sir Littleton Ernest

Groom, K.C.M.G., K.C., M.A., LL.M., M.P.: pt. 1, “Political and Public Life”, by L. F. Fitzhardinge (pp. 15-192); pt. v, “The Tribute of a Contemporary”, by W. M. Hughes (pp. 235-260). Sydney, 1941. Netson, T., The Hungry Mile. Sydney, 1957. Parmer, N., Henry Bournes Higgins: a Memoir. London, 1931.

Pearce, Sir George F., Carpenter to Cabinet: Thirty-seven Years of Parliament. London, 1951. Pippincton, A. B., Worshipful Masters. Sydney, 1929.

Quick, J., and Garran, R. R., The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. Sydney, 1901. Rerp, Sir George H., My Reminiscences. London, 1917. Reynotps, J., Edmund Barton. Sydney, 1948. SAWER, G., Australian Federal Politics and Law, 1901-1929. Melbourne, 1956.

SLADEN, D., From Boundary Rider to Prime Minister. London, 1916. SPENCE, W. G., Australia’s Awakening: Thirty Years in the Life of an Australian Agitator. Sydney, 1909. Spricc, 5. W., W. M. Hughes, the Strong Man of Australia. London, 1916. STEVENS, B., “William Morris Hughes, Attorney-General of the Commonwealth”, Lone Hand, XI, 37-46 (May, 1912). TxHompson, J., On Lips of Living Men. Melbourne, 1962. “William Morris Hughes”, 77-130.

Turner, H. G., The First Decade of the Australian Commonwealth: a Chronicle of Contemporary Politics 1901-1910. Melbourne, 1911. Waters, T. D., Much Besides Music: Memoirs. Melbourne, 1951. Wuyte, W. Farmer, William Morris Hughes: his Life and Times. Sydney, 1957:

Wisz, B. R., The Making of the Australian Commonwealth. London, IQI3.

y 307

Index

Index “Active Service Brigade’, 49, 58 Australian Workers’ Union, example of,

Adavale, Queensland, 15 100; takes part in Commonwealth inAddison, G. C., Industrial Registrar, N.S.W., augural celebrations, 113-14; relations with

109 Labor Governments, 161; and New Zealand John Australian Workman, in 1894, 49; acclaims Allen, G. T., Secretary of Commonwealth Hughes’s selection, 57; on N.S.W. politics, “Alastair, Captain’. See Strachan, Captain strike, 298-301

Treasury, 251 59

Amalgamated Shearers’ Union, initiative for

1893 conference from, 42; Hughes as Baker, W. H., headmaster of St Stephen’s organizer for, 44-6 School, 5 Amalgamated Society of Engineers, in 1908 Balmain, N.S.W., Hughes in, 19-20; centre

strike, 203 of political activity, 21; first L.E.L. formed

Amery, L. S. (M.P., Great Britain), 191 in, 30; branch of A.S.L. formed, 32

Anderson, Rev. J. B., 66, 67 Baltic, s.s.. Hughes travels on, 194

Anderson, Sir Kenneth, shipowner, 186 Bamford, F. W. (M.H.R.), Vice-president of Anderson, R. M. McC., member of Royal W.W.F., 108; at conference on N.Z. ship-

Commission on Sugar Industry, 266 ping strike, 299

Anstey, Frank, 247 Bar, N.S.W., Hughes admitted, 154; his

Anti-Convention Bill League, formed, 91; practice at, 205-6; refuses congratulations merges in Colonists’ Anti-Convention Bull to Powers and Piddington, 278

League (q.v.), 91 Bar, Victorian, refuses congratulations to

Aorangi, ss. Hughes travels on, 194, 195; Powers and Piddington, 278

196 Barger’s Case, destroys basis of “New Pro-

Arbitration, industrial, included in N.S.W. tection”, 257 Labor platform, 62; supported by Wise, Barton, Szr Edmund, in N.S.W. politics, 38; 74; defended by Hughes, 210-11; Com- hostile reception in Lang Division, 71-2; monwealth powers on, 116, 118, 259-62 succeeded by Lyne as leader of ProtecArbitration Court, N.S.W., awards granted tionists, 74; and Federal Convention, 82, to S.W.L.U. by, 106, 197-8; unions lose 84; forms first Commonwealth Govern-

confidence in, 198-9 ment, 112-13, 123-4; and Immigration Archibald, W. O., 247 Restriction Act, 1901, 133; and Naval Argus (Melbourne), on WHughes’s appoint- Agreement Bill, 142-3; against bringing

ments to High Court, 278-9 State employees under Federal Arbitration

Arnold, Matthew, as Inspector of Schools, Act, 157; leaves politics for High Court, 8-9; commends Hughes, 9; offers to place 153; attitude to Commonwealth powers,

_ Hughes in bank, 11; Hughes on, 9 257; on Piddington resignation, 281; Sir Arnold, Monty, artist on New Order, 53 John Gordon on, 272

Aubrey, Father, 103 Batchelor, E. L., in South Australian politics, Australian Federation of Labor, succeeds 119; in first Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney Trades and Labor Council, 62; 121; helps select Watson Ministry, 159, endorses platform on federation, 81 162; reminds Watson of promise to Hughes, Australian Industries Preservation Act, 264; 179; in first Fisher Ministry, 175; on prosecution of Coal Vend under, 267-70; intimate terms with Hughes, 253 Isaacs and, 269; inadequacy of, 269-70, Bavin, T. R. (Sir Thomas), and the Early 271; Hughes’s attitude to, 287-9; 1910 Closing Association, 76; helps Hughes in

amendment to, 288-9, 289-94 legal studies, 99; appears for Common-

Australian Labor Party. See Labor Party wealth in Vend case, 268, 270; suggested Australian National Defence League, 221 for High Court, 274 Australian Socialist League, growth after Bavister, T. (M.L.A.), ror, 102 1890 Strike, 29; Balmain branch, 32; Beeby, G. S. (Sir George), early associate of activities of at Leigh House, 32-3; breaks Hughes, 26, 30, 32; moves for general with Labor Party, 63; opposes Common- conference of organizations sympathetic to

wealth Bill, 91 Labor, 41, 43

Australian Star (Sydney), on meeting in Beer, J. C., 115, 118

Lang Division, 67-70 Bellenger, R., 254-5 ZIT

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Black, G., in Socialist League, 32, 63; member atts, J. H. (M.H.R.), 298, 299 of first Parliamentary Labor Party, 39; and Chalmers, Captain, 186 pledge, 47, 50, 52, 58, 61-2; joins Hughes Chamberlain, Joseph, 189, 191 in demonstration against Norton, 67-70; Chanter, J. M., 125 Labor candidate for Federal Convention, Chapman, A. (Szr Austin), 125 82, 84; speaks at meetings of S.W.L.U., Charlton, Mathew, 247

IOI, 102 Chuck, J. A., opposes Hughes for pre-selec-

Blacket, W. (K.C.), appears in Vend case, tion, 51; for Lang Division, 71, 72 268; suggested for High Court, 280 Churchill, W. S. (Sir Winston), 189, 190 Boer War. See South African War City Council Amendment Act, sponsored by

Bombala, N.S.W., visited in search for Hughes, 73, 75

Federal Capital, 149 Coal-lumpers, Sydney, strike of, 196; in

Bowling, Peter, attacks political Labor Party, 1909 coal strike, 233; strong in West 226; leads Newcastle coal strike, 226-37; Sydney electorate, 240, 243-4 breaks with Hughes, 231-7; arrested, 232, Coal Vend, criticism of, 211, 226; example

233; supports Holland in West Sydney, of combination, 265; history of, 267; 246 prosecution of, 267-70 Braddon, Sir Edward, proposal for distri- Coalitions, Hughes on, 213-15 bution of Commonwealth revenue, 89, 92, Coastal Steamship Owners’ Association, in-

93, 95, 242; in first Federal Parliament, transigence of, 196-7

126; dies, 156 Cochran, J., Co-trustee for Commonwealth

Brady, E. J., 29 Inauguration celebrations, 113

Brassey, Lord, 190 Cockerill, George, on King O’Malley, 121; Brennan, Frank, 247 on search for Federal Capital, 149-50

Brennan, P. J., 29 Cocks, Rev. N. J., 238 Brient, L. J., Editor of Daily Telegraph, 75 Cohen, H. E. (Mr Justice), on right of unions Bright, John, 3 to restrict membership, 197; appointed

225 Industry, 265

Broken Hill, strike at, in 1892, 40; in 1909, Chairman of Royal Commission on Sugar

Brown, Thomas, accepts 1895 pledge, 61-2; Cole, S. L., 243, 244, 246, 247 in first Commonwealth Parliament, 120 Colonial Sugar Refining Company, attacked Brown, W. Jethro, Chairman of Royal Com- as monopoly, 265; defies Royal Commismission on Sugar Industry, 265; on judg- sion on Sugar Industry, 266-7 ment in Vend case, 272; suggested for Colonists’ Anti-Convention Bill League, 91,

High Court, 273, 274 94

Brunker, J. N., in N.S.W. politics, 36; can- Combinations, Coal Vend example of, 265;

didate for Federal Convention, 82 Hughes approves of, 289

“Bryn Rosa”, Abbey Road, Llandudno, Commerce Power, Hughes on, 260

Hughes lives at, 3 Commonwealth, Hughes transfers to politics

Bulletin (Sydney), interview with Hughes on of, 115; his programme for, 116; limited

Federal policies, 116; on N.S.W. Parlia- powers of, 257-70; Hughes on need to

ment in 1894, 58-9; on causes of 1909 coal extend powers, 259-62 strike, 226; on appointments to High Commonwealth Bank, advocated by Hughes

Court, 279-80 in 1901, 116; omitted from 1910 policy

Burdett-Coutts, Baroness, 4, I! speech, 243; established, 250-1

Burns, James, 173 Commonwealth Constitution Bull, ist referButler, John, 51, 57 endum, 90-2; 2nd referendum, 94-6

Commonwealth Inauguration celebrations,

Call, The, Journal of the National Defence 113-14

League, 221 Commonwealth Notes Act (1910), 243, 249N.S.W.), 29 Commonwealth-State __ relations, _ financial,

Cameron, Angus (first ‘labour’ M.P. in 50

Cameron, D. N. (M.H.R.), 133 224, 241-2

Campbell, Colonel Gerald, 221 Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, debate on,

Campbell, J. L. (K.C.), 268 147-8; brings down Deakin’s Government, Campbell, Mary. See Hughes, Dame Mary 156-7; Watson defeated on, 167-8; passed

Canada, Hughes visits, 195 by Reid, 169

Captain’s Flat, Hughes speaks at, 63 Condobolin, N.S.W., Hughes at, 44 Carruthers, J. H. (Sir Joseph), in N.S.W. Connington, M. J., Secretary of Trolley,

Parliament, 36 Draymen and Carters’ Union, 200

“Case for Labor’, Hughes contributes to ‘Constant Hands’, employment on wharves, Daily Telegraph, 206-15; on Hughes’s ex- 106, 198-9 perience as pupil-teacher, 5-10; on love of | Cook, J. (Szr Joseph), member of first Labor

country, 196; on coalitions, 213-14 Party, 39, 58; takes office under Reid, Casual wage, problem of fixing, 197-8 59; tries to detach Labor from Barton, 312

INDEX

Cook, (Sir Joseph)—continued Deakin, Alfred—continued

122; in first Commonwealth Parliament, Watson Government, 168; forms second 125-6; deputy leader of Free Trade Party, Ministry, 169; determines to end _ three156; leader, 176; introduces Detence Bull, party system, 175-6; chooses delegates to 1909, 223; leads Fusion in 1gto election, Merchant Shipping Conference, 184-5; 242; appoints Piddington chairman of Hughes on health of, 191; explores possiInterstate Commission, 283; leader of bility of alliance with Labor, 213-14; his Liberal Party, 286; controversy with Hughes 1909 policy speech, 214-15; announces on Vend case, 287, 289-91; forms Govern- Fusion, 216; Hughes’s attacks on, 216-18, ment, 294; obtains double dissolution, 220; and defence, 221, 222-3; suggested

301-2; Hughes on, 220 intervention in 1909 coal strike, 231;

Cooper, A., of Seamen’s Union, 299 resigns, 247; retires from politics, 286; on Copy, Hughes’s account of New Order in, Lyne, 37-8; on Isaacs, 124; on Glynn, 126

53-6 Defence, military, and federation, 78, 80;

Corowa, N.S.W., Federal conference at, 79 Hughes announces policy, 116, 118;

Corporations, Commonwealth lacks effective Defence Bill, 1901-3, 136-42; Hughes’s

power over, 260-1 association with, 220-4; Defence Bill

Cotton, Frank (M.L.A.), 30 (1908), 222; Defence Bill (1909), 223-4; Cowra, N.S.W., Hughes at, 46; selected for, Hughes claims policy originated by Labor,

52 244; Fisher Government extends, 243

Cox, Bertram, of the Colonial Office, 186, Defence, naval, Naval Agreement, 137-8,

188-9 142-7; and Royal Commission on Navi-

Crawford, T. W., member of Royal Com- gation Bill, 182-3; Deakin and, 223

mission on Sugar Industry, 266 De Largie, H., Senator, first treasurer of

Crick, W. P., in New South Wales Parlia- W.W.F., 108; in first Commonwealth Parment, 39; Hughes a match for, 61; candi- liament, 120; member of Royal Commission

date for Federal Convention, 84 on Navigation Bill, 180

Crusts and Crusades, on Queensland outback, Democrat (Sydney), Hughes contributes to,

15; on Hughes’s walk from Maryborough 30-2 to Gympie, 16; on Sydney in 1886, 18; on Desmond, A., principal poet of New Order, W. A. Holman (‘““‘Thompson’’), 23-4, 24-53 55 on Leigh House, 33; on organizing in Dubbs, G. R. (Sir George), Leader of N.S.W.

central-western N.S.W., 45-6; on pre- Protectionists, 37; succeeds Parkes as

selection for Lang Division, 52; on ‘‘Cap- Premier, 40; and Broken Hill strike, 4o;

tain Alastair’, 70, 71 resigns premiership, 58; opposes Federation

Cudal, N.S.W., Hughes at, 46 Bill, 82, 94 Cunliffe, Ellis, 186 Dick, W. T. (M.L.A.), collaborates with Cutts, Elizabeth. See Hughes, Elizabeth panes in pamphlet against Federation ill, 86-9

Dacey, J. R. (M.L.A.), 73 Dodd, Thomas, leader of ‘“‘Active Service Daily Chronicle (London), Hughes con- Brigade”, 49; opposes Federation Bill, 94

tributes to, 215 Drake, J. G., Senator, 124

Daily Telegraph (Sydney), accuses Hughes of | Droving, Hughes’s stories of, 16

being paid by Protectionists, 44; assists Dudley, Lord (Governor-General), refuses Hughes against Reid, 75; Hughes’s intro- dissolution, 219; friction with Labor duction to, 77; Hughes contributes to, Ministry, 253 206-15; on 1909 coal strike, 233-4, 237-8 Duffy, F. Gavan (Sir Frank), 275

Dalgety, N.S.W., visit to, 150; chosen as Duke of Westminster, Hughes comes to

Federal Capital site, 167 Australia on, 13

Dawson, A., Senator, in first Commonwealth Dunlop, R. J., shipowner, 187 Parliament, 120; chairs meeting to form caucus, 122; in Watson Ministry, 160, 161, Early Closing Movement, 63, 73-4, 75-7,

162 99, 104, II5

Day, J. M., Editor of Worker, 49 Edden, A. (M.L.A.), member of 1891 Labor

Deakin, Alfred, in Barton’s Ministry, 123, Party, 58; accepts pledge, 61-2; and Reid,

127; speaks on Immigration Restriction 72

Bill, 134; against inclusion of State railway Eden, N.S.W., visited in search of federal employees in Federal Arbitration Bill, 148, capital, 149 157; introduces Judiciary Bill, 151; suc- Edwards, G. B. (M.H.R.), 180 ceeds Barton, 153, 156; and Watson, 157; = Elections, Commonwealth, tgor, 115-109;

re-introduces Conciliation and Arbitration 1903, 154-6; 1906, 171-4; 1910, 240,

Bill, 157; advises Governor-General to send 242-73 1913, 286-94 for Watson, 157-8; approves Watson’s in- Elections, New South Wales, 1894, 57, 58; vitation to Higgins, 159; promises Labor 1895, 59-60, 64-7; 1898, 70-3; 1913, 299 “the utmost fair play”, 162; and fall of Empire, Hughes on, 145, 224 313

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Employers’ Federation, Sydney, intervenes an Fushimi, Prince, 193, 195 1908 strike, 201-2, 203; declares neutrality Fusion, Hughes on, 212-15; announced by

in 1909 coal strike, 230 Deakin, 216-173 and 1gto election, 242

Eugowra, N.S.W., Hughes visits, 45 Fysh, Sir Philip, 124, 127

Eyre, Hal, cartoons on coal strike, 233, 234,

237 Garran, R. R. (Sir Robert), Secretary of Attorney-General’s Department, 252; sug-

Farrell, John, poet and journalist, 30-1 gested for High Court, 274, 275; on ap-

Fealy, D., 72 pointment of Gavan Duffy, 275

FP ederal Capital, Hughes favours Sydney, 933 George, Henry, visits Australia, 25-6; Hughes

Dalgety 1675 Territory acquired by gate 26 7% Seein also Single Tax | algetychosen, chosen, 107; Germany, expanding trade Pacific, 188; Fisher Government, 249 ; Hughes’s mistrust of, 1

Federal Convention (1897-8), Labor candi- Gilmore, Dame Mary, ‘38° date for, 82-4; Adelaide session, 84-53 Glynn, P. McMahon, in first Commonwealth proposals criticized by Hughes, 85-9; Parliament, 126; on Hughes, 259; on power

Sydney and Melbourne sessions, 89-90 to control corporations, 261; Sir John Federation, a8 r 08 clection sg cam- Gordon on, 273; suggested for High Court,

paigns for, 78-98; Hughes on, 2 273-4, 275, 270 Fegan, J. L. (M.L.A.), 75 Goaribari Island, New Guinea, massacre at,

Fenton, D.J. G.E.(Sir (M.H.R.), 166 Samuel. 1 Ferguson, David), 274247 Gompers.

Fisher, Andrew, on first committee of Cor do _ oe John, Chairman of Royal Com-

W.W.F., in first Federal Parlia-265; or ? on q Ge: dj ? ? be108-9; mission on Sugar Industry, verdict

ment, 120; opposes fall ulsory | mmuary in Sugar case, 272; on possible appointtraining, 142; causes fall of Deakin Gov- ments to High Court, 273-4 ernment, 157; in Watson Ministry, 1605 Grayndler, E., represents A.W.U. at con162; deputy leader of Labor Party, 170; ference on NZ. strike, 299 leader, 170; 6;forms Government, 175; G D “ute ? and Navigation Bill, 27°CD» “an, 255 aay ee Gisolation. a8; suggests refer- Grifhth, Arthur (M.L.A.), 82, 84

1795 of ; , coal ‘ ; Griffith, Szr Samuel, attitude to Commonence strike to Commonwealth Arbi; £ Labor’s wealth powers, 257, 271; ith givesmo casting

tration Court, 231;voteestimate o abo or 247: his second Government, in Sugar case, 266-7; reverses66-9: Isaacs’s

on ‘ irConference, John Gordon, 272 Imperial 263; on need for aaa . ; Labor “‘representation” on High Court, Groom, mi ‘ Oe Littleton), in first vom 247, 248-51. “7 itends Coronation and yr “Co vend case, 270; criticized by

> er _h edera apital, I5I; on oya ommis-

273; briefed by Hughes on proposals to Felenl C “ar lament, Rk val Con or amend Copsurations a4 as See on sion on Navigation Bill, 180; approached velatic ith Hughes, 171, 17 , 170, by Hughes on Merchant Shipping Confer-

Sanaa meat industry, 296 Fitzgerald, J. D. (M.L.A.), 51, 57 Flowers, F. (M.L.C.), on committee to draft Groom, W. H. (M.HLR.), 125

a wat ughes, 171; 73 ? ence, 184; proposes Royal Commission on

Labor manifesto 59; candidate for Federal Gullet, H. S. (Sir Henry), quoted, 107

Convention. 82 "9 , Guthrie, R. S., Senator, on Royal Commission

EF ° “H 66 6" 4 on Navigation Bill, 180; possible delegate oran, feo oe OF to Merchant Shipping Conference, 185; and Forbes, N.S.W., Hughes at, 44 9 terside strik and Peak

Forrest, Szr John, in127, Barton 123;220, 328229, watersl and NZstrike, Aik coal his conservatism, 156;Ministry, and defence, 230;teand N.Z. 299strike,

137, 142, 144; outburst on Labor Gov-

ernment, 162; chosen as successor by Hall, Ben, relatives of, 45

Deakin, 176 Hamburg, dock strike at, 192

Fowler, J. M. (M.H.R.), 121, 161 . Hanrahan, J. V., 115, 118 Frazer, C. E. (M.L.A.), writes to Fisher on Harper, Robert, 127 .

Hughes, 253; on Hughes’s marriage, 256; Harrison, S. T., Financial Secretary of assists in enquiries about High Court ap- S.W.L.U., 104i his illness, 241, 297; loses

pointments, 283 position, 29

Free trade, Hughes on, 129 Heydon, C. G., Judge, 197-8 |

Free Trade Association, N.S.W., policies and Heydon, L. F. (M.L.C.), candidate for Fed-

personalities in 1891, 35-7 eral Convention, 82, 84; leader of Colonists’

Free Trade Party, in first Commonwealth Anti-Convention Bill League, 94

Parliament, 125-6, 127 Higgins, H. B. (Mr Justice), member of Fed-

Freeman’s Reach, N.S.W., Hughes’s farm eral Convention, 84; accepts Constitution,

at, 227, 246, 254-5 97; in first Commonwealth Parliament, 314

INDEX

Higgins, H. B. (Mr Justice)—continued Hughes, William (father of W. M. Hughes),

124, 127; opposes South African War, 125; 1-3, 189 . .

secures restriction of compulsory service to Hughes, William Morris, birth of, I; parents Australia, 140; opposes Judiciary Bull, 151; of, 1-3; childhood and education of, 2-5; supports inclusion of State railway servants as pupil-teacher, 5-11; as a bell-ringer, Il;

in Commonwealth Arbitration Bill, 157; in as a volunteer soldier, 11; emigrates to Watson Ministry, 159-60, 162; on High Australia, 12; his life in Queensland, 13Court, 257; dissents on “New Protection’, 16; as a bush-worker, 15-16, 18; in the 174; complains of restriction of Arbitration Queensland Navy, 16, 146-7; his droving power, 257; dissents in Sugar case, 267; Sstori¢s, 17; aS a seaman, 17; influence of

judgment approved by Sir John Gordon, bush life on, 17-18; arrives in Sydney, 272; views generally favourable to Labor, 17, 18-19; his first marriage, 19, 177-8;

271: hears claims of W.W.F., 297 as an umbrella-mender, 20; as a_lockHiggs, W. G. (M.HLR.), 108-9 smith, 20; as a bookseller, 20-1; his relaHigh Court, established, 153; rules against tions with Holman, 23-5, 60, 242, 259, “New Protection”, 174; and Common- 262-3, 284-6; his reading, 24; becomes a wealth powers, 257-70, 271; functions, speaker, 25; as a follower of Henry George,

272; to, 2,271-83 25-6, 210-11, 3 1 7 support for aca oe Hill, N.,appointments shipowner, 186-7 FLO, 147-0, 224-5; Mus Cistrus Hillyer, E., President of S.W.L.U., 298, 300 of the general strbke, 30, 210-113 on social:

Hinchcliffe, A. (M.L.C., Queensland), 266 isn, eo 208-10; ‘ his crs C fo the Holder, F. W. (Sir Frederick), Speaker in Son ist PeABHe 32, 33 1S vor or the first Commonwealth Parliament, 126; dies, solidarity pledge, 41-2; as a Labor organ-

219 izer in the country, 43-6, 50; and the New

Holland, H. E., militant socialist, 58; edits O76" 49°50, 52-7; at the 1894 Confer-

ae ; ence, 50-1; selected asLLabor the Socialist, 63; reorganizes Newcastle his first.candidate elect; ampa;for

W.L.U., 106; hostility Hughes, ang, 51-2; Ais New st erection = campaign, ; :toos 56-7;104, elected to the South Wales

107; coal-lumpers’57; strike, 1m- on ; a, free , ; ;leads ; ; Parliament, his196; views

trade 2? : , his part in shaping the early policy of the

prisoned for part in Broken Hill strike, 225; ; Hucl 1 West Svdnev. 928- and tariffs, 57, 115, 117-18, 129-30, 130-3, ona, 246 _ wn est oyeney, 239°9> 171-2, 174; in the 1895 election, 59, 64-7;

Hollis, L. T. (M.L.A.), in ast paper partys Labor Party, 59-61; as a_ parliamentary aa seeks reconctiation with expelled pro- speaker, 60-1; at the 1896 Conference, 62:

EcuONnIsts, 4 i. his work for early closing, 63, 73, 75, 76,

Holman, W. A. (M.L.A.), early Association 99; his ascendancy in Lang, 64, 66-7; on with Hughes, 23-5; 323 and the our-poun the Upper House, 64-6; at the meeting to brick, 24; and Australian Socialist League, oppose Norton, 67-70; in the 1898 elec-

29, 30, 32, 63; advocates solidanty tion, 70-2; his attitude to federation, 72,

pledge, 41-2; and November 93 confer- 79-80, 81, 82, 83-4, 85-9, 91-2, 93-7, 115; ence, 43, 47, 50; and New Oraer, 52°35 his part in the overthrow of Reid, 73-4, 553 accuses Parliamentary party of “pot- 75; as a candidate for the Federal Contering”, 60; one of solid six”, 73; and vention, 82, 83-4; his pamphlet, with Dick Federation campaigns, 82, 83, 84, 943 on federation, 86-9; his view of financial favours fixed payments by Commonwealth arrangements between States and Com-

to States, 242; opposes federal land tax, monwealth, 88, 92, 95, 224, 244; and 242, 245; on Fisher and Hughes, 252; the choice of the Federal Capital, 93, 148breach with Hughes over Commonwealth 51; his attitude to the Boer War, 97-8; powers, 259, 262-3; special conference de- reads for the Bar, 99, 151, 154; organizes

clines to discipline, 284 the Wharf Labourers’ Union, 99, 101-4; Hopetoun, Lord, 112-13 as leader of the wharf labourers, 99, 101-

Hotel, Club and = Restaurant Employees’ II, 185-6, 196-7, 198-204, 227, 228-9,

Union, 100 232-3, 240-1, 296-302; his relations with Party, 39 246-7; hostility of extremists to, 107, 224,

Houghton, T. J., member of first Labor Holland, 106, 107, 196, 225, 238, 243,

Howell, Walter, 186 229, 231-7, 238-9, 240-1, 243, 246, 297,

Hughes, Arthur, 178 300; organizes and leads the Trolley, DrayHughes, Elizabeth, marries Hughes, 19; dies, men and Carters’ Union, 106, 111, 199-

177-8 201, 202; organizes the Waterside Workers’ 178, 255 Australia and immigration, 116, 118, 128-

Hughes, Ethel, acts as hostess for Hughes, Federation, 108-11; his views on White

Hughes, Jane, 1-2, 3 9, 132, 133, 135-6, 163-4; on defence Hughes, Mary (aunt of Hughes), 3 and military training, 116, 118, 136-42,

Hughes, Dame Mary, 255-6 144-7, 182, 190, 220-4; organizes trade 315

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Hughes, William Morris—continued Illawarra Steamship Co., employs unionists, unions’ part in Commonwealth celebra- 198

tions, 113-14; candidate for West Sydney Immigration, restriction included in Labor’s (1901),119-120; I15-19; enters the Federal 81; Australia’, Hughes on Common ment, his maiden speechParliain thefederal wealthplatform, and ‘White 116, 118; Federal Parliament, 128-9; his views on prominence given to “White Australia” by the functions of the High Court, 151-2; Barton approved, 128-9; policy supervised as a barrister, 154, 168, 205-6, 273; in the by Department of External Affairs, 163-6; Federal election of 1903, 155; proposed as of Chinese, 163; of Japanese and Papuan Attorney-General, 159; Minister for Ex- pearl divers, 163-4; of Japanese and Indian ternal 162, 163-75 hisDeakin, due’s win merchants, of Italians, 164-5; Hughes Reid, Affairs, 167-8, 171-2; attacks 168, speaks in1643 London on restriction, 193;

214, 216-18, 220; Deakin’s ‘“‘tart-shop” and land tax, 212, 244-5; and defence,

description of, 168; as deputy leader of the 224; restrictions not based on colour alone,

Labor Party, 170-1, 207, 252-3; his re- 224

lations with Fisher, 170, 177, 179, 252; Immigration Restriction Bill (1901), debate as Attorney-General, 175, 206, 212, 251-2, on, 133-6 257, 267, 269, 271-80, 283, 285; in the Industrial Disputes Act (1908), creates in-

Federal election of 1906, 171-4; _ his dustrial unrest, 224; Wade amends, 237;

domestic and social life, 177-8, 253-4, 255- unpopularity of, 296

6; his children, 178, 253; and the Royal Industrial Workers of the World, Hughes

Commission on the Navigation Bill, 178, opposed to doctrines, 211; establishment in 179-80, 182; and the Royal Commission Australia, 224; Preamble rejected by Trade on the Bonus for Manufacturers Bill, 180; Union Congress, 226; associated with coal as delegate to the Merchant Shipping Con- strike, 228, 231-2, 236-7 ference (1907), 184, 185, 186, 187-9; and Inger, s.s., seamen from, allowed to remain

the waterfront strike of 1907, 185; his . Australia, 165

relations with Lloyd George, 187-8, 189-90; Institute of Marine Engineers, Hughes ap-

his impressions of England in 1907, 189; pears for, 205

on Winston Churchill, 189, 190; and the International Transport Federation, 192 National Defence veagte1391; 190, ory his Interstate appointment of Chairletter to Jebb, quoted, addresses man, Commission, 282-3 National Service League, 191-2; and the fryine, W. H. (Sir William), suggested for

British Labour Party, anes195; 208-93 Court, 275, America, 194; in Canada, andhe theHigh Piddington, 278279; refuses to welcome waterfront strike of 1908, 196, 198-204; Isaacs, I. A. (Sir Isaac), in first Commonhis “Case for Labor’ articles, 206-15; his wealth Parkenen, 124-5, 1273 supports journalistic style, 206-7; and240, the 240; | coalhis Watson 167; dissents from strike of 1909, 211, 225-39, verdictGovernment, in ‘New Protection” case, 174; views on land tax, 212, 244-5, 249-50, 253; does not consider coal strike could be his attacks on the Fusion, 212-15, 217-18, brought under Commonwealth Arbitration

220, 244; his articles in the Daily Court, 231; on High Court, 257; dissents in Chronicle, 215; prepares memorandum Sugar case, 267; hears Coal Vend case, seeking the dissolution of Parliament, 268-9; views generally favour Labor, 271; 218-193 attacks wi Cook, oi 26. 227 in 272 Sugar case approved by Sir John 293; clashes eterBow: Bowling, ; )dissent ordon,

228-30, 231-4, 236, 238-9, 240; his farm, Italians, as immigrants, 164-5, 195 227, 245, 246, 254-5; fayours the enlarge-

ment of Commonwealth powers, 241-2, 257-64, 284-94; in the election of 1910, Japanese, exclusion of, 134, 1353; exemptions

243-7; and the establishment of the Com- from Immigration Restriction Act for, monwealth Bank, 250-1; as acting Prime 164; feeling against in U.S.A. and Canada, Minister, 252-3, 263; sued by former land- 194-5; Hughes’s mistrust of, 195-6 lady, 253-4; his second marriage, 255-6; Jebb, Richard, letter from Hughes to, 191 and the Vend case, 267, 269, 271, 272, 288- Johnson, W. E. (Sir Elliott), 156 93; his appointment of High Court judges, Jose, A. W., on industrial situation, 198-9; 272-83; and the 1913 referendum, 284- supports National Defence League, 221 94; and the election of 1913, 287, 290-4; Judiciary Bill (1903), debate on, I51-2 organizes the Transport Workers’ Federa- Judiciary Act (1912), creates additional places tion, 288; attacks the Liberal Party, 295-6; on High Court, 271 congratulates Cook, 294; and the New

Zealand strike, 298-301 Keith, A. Berriedale, 186

Hunter, Percy, journalist, 42, 77 Kelly, Edward A., chairman at meeting to

Hutchison, James, in first Fisher Ministry, 175 re-form S.W.L.U., 103; chairs meeting of 316

INDEX

Kelly, Edward A.—continued Land Tax Act (1910), passed, 249-50; effects, S.W.L.U. on coal strike, 229; opposes 212

Hughes, 240 Lane, Ernest, on New Order, 56-7

Kelly, W. H. (M.H.R.), Hughes on, 220 Lang, Rev. J. Dunmore, 37 Kilbeg, John (“Manchester Jack”), 102 Lang Division, Sydney, Hughes becomes canKingston, C. C., member of Federal Conven- didate for, 51-2; his hold over, 66-7; stormy

tion, 84; in Barton’s Ministry, 124, 127; meeting in, 67-70; included in Federal

introduces tariff, 130; illness, 156; opposes electorate of West Sydney, 114 Government on Arbitration Bill, 157; in- Langley, Rt. Rev. J. D. (Bishop), 102, 103 clusion in Watson Ministry considered, 159 Lansbury, George (M.P., Great Britain), im-

275 a: Hugh di ;

Knox, A. (Sir Adrian), eee h on pression of Brisbane in 1884, 13

a5. 268, 270; suggested for Hig ourt, Leigh House, Sydney, headquarters of A.S.L.,

sy: 32-3; Hughes on discussions at, 31, 33;

Knox, William (M.H.R.), 126, 180 Hughes regular speaker at, 33

NSW. Hughes on, 295 |

Labor Electoral Leagues. See Labor Party, Iiberal Party, “Fusion” adopts name, 286;

Labor Party, Federal, formation, 119-22; mle oo Hughes contributes to, holds balance of power, 127; forms Gov- “I ernment, 157-62; withdraws support from Lloyd George, D., at Board of Trade, 183-4;

Deakin, 175; transition from third party caus Merchant Shipping Conterence, 186, to official opposition, 207, 216; policy for 1607-0; on Hughes at Merchant Shipping 1910 election, 242-3; attitude to Consti- Conference, 188; Hughes on, 190

tution, 258 London, early influence on Hughes, 2-3; re-

Interstate Conferences: 1902, forbids tak- visited, 189 ing office without caucus approval, 156; Lyndhurst, N.S.W., favoured by Hughes for

1905, Watson criticized at, 170; 1908, Federal Capital, 148

prohibits alliances, 174-5; adopts compul- Lyne, W. J. (Sir William), Leader of Prosory military training, 221-2; 1912, and tectionists, 37-8, 74; displaces Reid, 74-5;

Commonwealth powers, 284-6 carries measures desired by Labor, 75-6;

Labor Party, N.S.W., formation, 28-30; candidate for Federal Convention, 82, 84; gains balance of power, 34; parliamentary attitude to Federa: Bill, 94; at meeting to difficulties, 39-40; and the pledge, 39, 41-2, launch S.W.L.U., 103-4; fails to form 47, 48, 61; lessons of failure, 40; plat- Federal Government, 112-13; and Comform of, 48, 62-3; dissention between monwealth celebrations, 113; in Barton’s Central Executive Committee and parlia- Ministry, 123; relations with Hughes, 157; mentary party, 49; attitude to federation, supports Watson, 167; at Merchant Ship78, 79, 80-2; federal manifesto, 82-3; de- ping Conference, 184, 185, 187; Hughes clares against Federal Bill, 91; endorses on, 191; resents Fusion, 219; loses seat, 286 federal platform and pledge, 120 Conferences: 1st Annual, January, 1892, MacCallum, M. W. (Sir Mungo), 221

41; 2nd Annual, January, 1893, 4/3 McDermott, Peter, presides over pre-selection August, 1893, 42-3; November, 1893, 46 ball , Me

50; 3rd Annual, March, 1894, 49, 50-1; 4th leade contiumepore 196 meeting, 07; Annual, 1895, 61-2; 5th Annual, 1896, - 7 62-3, 80-2; 6th Annual, 1897, 63, 82; 7th McDonald, Charles, in first Commonwealth

Annual, 1898, 63; Annual, 1910, 262; Parliament, 120; carries inclusion of railS ecial. Au “ast 1o1t 28.4: Annual 1912, way employees in Arbitration Bill, 148

384.6 ) gust, ; } ? MacDonald, J. Ramsay, opposed to compulsory

Labour Federation of Australasia, N.S.W. arbitration, 210; introduces Hughes at ike, 298-9, meeting, 193 Branch, and New Zealand strike, 299-9 Macdonell, Donald, Secretary A.W.U., 113

208-9 cGowen, Jj. 9. I. -L.A.), in origina

Labour Party, British, Hughes on, 191-2, 193, yi ackarlanes fe sot ML AD 3 inal

Lake George, visited in search of Federal Labor Party, 39; vores with snajority of Capital, 150 caucus, 40; accepts pledge, 58; on comLamb, S. ED (K.C.), appears in Vend case, mittee to draft manifesto, 59; moves in268; possible High Court appointment, 275 clusion of vu Par jamentary mem ers on Lamond, H. J. (M.H.R.), chairman of Sydney committee of I’.L.L., 62; pays tribute to Trades and Labor Council, 113; advises Reid, 75; on Federation Bull, 79; candiHughes on High Court appointments, 274 date for Federal Convention, 82, 83, 84; Land Tax, Federal tax opposed by Holman, and Federal Bill, 91, 93, 94; trustee for 242; included in policy speeches of 1908 Commonwealth celebrations, 113; defeated

and 1910, 243; Hughes on, 244-5 for Commonwealth Parliament, 120; per317

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

McGowen, J. S. T. (M.L.A.)—continued Monopolies, growth of, 264; Hughes’s attisuades Hughes to attend coal strike con- tude to, 211-12, 261-2, 264-5; of land, 212

ference, 227 Moran, P. F., Cardinal, 82

McGregor, G., Senator, in first Commonwealth Morris, Jane. See Hughes, Jane Parliament, 121; Labor leader in Senate, Morris, Joseph, Secretary of W.W.F., 108 122; rejects Cook’s bid, 122; in Watson Motor-cars, purchase by Fisher Government, Ministry, 160, 161, 162; in Fisher Ministry, 248; Hughes and, 255-6 175; ON appointments to High Court, 273 Munro-Ferguson, Sir Ronald (Lord Novar), Macintosh, —, opposes Hughes for pre-selec- 301-2

tion, 51-2 Murray, C. E. R., Judge, 166

McKillop, E., Labor pioneer, 29 Murray, J. H. P. (Sir Hubert), 166 MacLaurin, H. N. (Siz Normand Mac-

Laurin, M.L.C.), candidate for Federal Con- Naples, Hughes visits, 186

vention, 82; leader of Colonists’ Anti- Nash, Dr J. B. (M.L.C.), 231 Convention Bill League, 94; supports National Association, Hughes accused of aid-

National Defence League, 221 ing, 44; reports speeches by Hughes, 64;

McMahon, James, of Master Carriers’ Associ- supports federation, 78

ation, 202 National Service League (Great Britain),

McMillan, W. (Sir William), in Free Trade Hughes addresses, 191-2 Party, 36; candidate for Federal Conven- Naval Agreement Bill, 1903, debate on, 142-7 tion, 82; deputy leader of Free-traders in Navigation Bill (Commonwealth), 178-9; first Commonwealth Parliament, 125, 1273 Royal Commission on, 180-3; passed but on Immigration Restriction Bill, 133-4; re- disallowed, 249

tires, 156 Navigation Bill (N.S.W.), 73, 75

Mahon, Hugh (M.H.R.), in first Common- Neild, J. C., Senator, report on old-age penwealth Parliament, 121; in Watson Ministry, sions, 74-5 160, 161, 162; in Fisher Ministry, 175; New Guinea, Hughes responsible for, as dropped from second Fisher Ministry, 248 Minister for External Affairs, 165-6 Mann, Tom, exhorts Labor to “be courageous”, | New Hebrides, Hughes’s concern with, 166 160; in coal-lumpers’ strike, 196; in Broken New Order, 49-50, 52-6

Hill strike, 225 “New Protection”, keystone of understanding

1 by High Court, 174

Maranoa, s.s., Hughes comes to Sydney on, between Deakin and Labor, 174; rejected

Marine Insurance Bill, 219 New York, Hughes visits, 194

Maritime Strike (1890), 26-8; influence on Newcastle, N.S.W., wharf labourers’ union Hughes, 30; Hughes does not wish repeti- organized by Holland, 106; Royal Commis-

tion of, 200 sion on Navigation at, 181-2; general strike

Maryborough, Queensland, Hughes at, 16 at averted, 199; Hughes visits during coal Master Carriers’ Association, in 1908 strike, strike, 234-7

x01-2 Newcastle and Hunter River S.S. Co., trouble

Maternity Allowances Act, 249 over “constant hands”, 106; employs unionMauger, Samuel, in first Commonwealth Par- ists, 198; replaces unionists by “constant liament, 125, 127; on Royal Commission hands”, 199 on Navigation Bill, 180; recitation by, 149 Newcastle Wharf Labourers’ Union, seeks Mechan, John, on life of bush workers, 17 help from Sydney union, 102; Hughes reMelbourne Steamship Co. v. Moorehead, 271 fuses to support, 106; addressed by Hughes Merchant Service Guild, in 1908 strike, 200, on coal strike, 236-7

202; Hughes acts for, 200, 201, 205 Nicholls, H. (Mr Justice), 274 .

Merchant Shipping Act (Great Britain), 183 Northern Colliery Employees’ Federation, in Merchant Shipping Conference, 183-4, 186-8 1909 coal strike, 226-37; at conference on Military training compulsory, Hughes advo- New Zealand strike, 299 cates, 138-40, 141-2, 222; speech in Lon- Northern ‘Territory, Commonwealth | takes

don on, 191-2; National Defence League over, 249 .

urges, 221; Interstate Labor Conference Norton, John, and Truth, 39; thinks of stand-

adopts, 222; included in 1908 Defence ing for Lang Division, 67; transfers attenBill, 222 tions to Fitzroy, 70 Mills, Siz James, 186, 187 Norwegians, Hughes refuses to deport, 165 Mitchell, Queensland, Hughes at, 15

Mitchell, E. F. (Sir Edward), appears in OConnor, R. E. (Sir Richard), associate of Vend case, 268, 270; possible appointment Barton, 38; in Barton Ministry, 124; atti-

to High Court, 275 tude to Commonwealth powers, 257; dies,

Moldavia, R.M.s., dispute over transhipment 266

to, 202 O’Donoghue, Edward, 302 318

INDEX

O’Keefe, D. J., Senator, 121 Rae, Arthur, Senator, 81

Old-age and Invalid Pensions Bill, 219 Railway and Tramway Employees’ Associ-

Old-age pensions, placed on Labor “fighting ation, supports Labour Federation of Ausplatform”, 62-3; Hughes advocates, 72; Act tralasia, 298 passed by Lyne, 75; Commonwealth and, Referendums, on Commonwealth Powers,

116; common objective of Deakin and IQII, 262-4; 1913, 284-94

Labor, 174; Hughes claims credit for Labor, Reid, G. H. (Sir George), chairs lecture by

244 Henry George, 26; becomes Free Trade

O’Malley, King (M.H.R.), in first Common- leader, 35-6; splits first Labor Party, 40; wealth Parliament, 121; in search for Fed- triumph in 1894 elections, 58; favoured eral Capital, 149; omitted from Watson for premiership, 59; becomes premier, 59; Ministry, 161; influence with Caucus, 170; preferred by Hughes to Barton, 72; Labor opposes compulsory military training, 222; grows dissatished with, 73-4; defeated, 75; in second Fisher Ministry, 248; and Com- and Federation, 78, 79-80, 82, 90-1, 92-3, monwealth Bank, 250-1; Hughes visits, 94; and Isaacs, 124-5; in first Federal Par253; “occasional bursts” by, 253; marriage, liament, 125; moves censure, 130; in second

256 Parliament, 156; said to have set trap for

Orange, N.S.W., Hughes at, 16-17 Labor, 158; Hughes and, 167-8; Prime

O’Reilly, D. P. (M.H.R.), intermediary be- Minister, 168-9; parades “‘socialist tiger’, tween Hughes and Piddington, 276-7, 171; duel with Hughes, 171-2; resigns Free

580-1 Trade leadership, 176, 212

186 Roberts, Lord, 191

Orient, R.M.s.. Hughes goes to England on, Rich, G. E. (Sir George), 283

O’Sullivan, E. W., in N.S.W. politics, 38-9; Robinson, A. (Szr Arthur), 156 at Captain’s Flat, 63; on Federal Conven- Robinson, C. S., Judge, Acting Administrator tion, 84-5; at launching of S.W.L.U., 103-4 of New Guinea, 166 Rockley, N.S.W., Hughes at, 45

Pacific Islands, Hughes on trade with, 188 Roma, Queensland, Hughes at, 15 Parkes, Six Henry, Leader of Free-traders in Ronald, Rev. J. B., 121 1891, 35; resigns, 40; return as Premier Rosser, —, Secretary of Labour Federation of favoured, 58; Hughes on, 65-6; and fed- Australasia, 299

eration, 78 Royal Commissions, on Goaribari Incident,

Parties, political, in New South Wales, 34- 166; on Navigation Bill, 178-83; on Sugar 40; in first Commonwealth Parliament, Industry, 265-7; on Tariff, 169 127; in second Parliament, 156-7; and of Russia, invasion by, feared, 16, 146-7

three-party system, 176 Ryrie, G. de L. (Sir Granville), 63

Payne, George, comes to Australia with Hughes, 12, 15; Hughes joins at Mary- Salomons, Sir Julian, 221

borough, 16 Sandford, William, 238

Pearce, G. F. (Sir George), in first Federal Scott, Rose, and Early Closing Association, Parliament, 120-1; in Fisher Ministry, 175 76; opposes Federal Bill, 94 Piddington, A. B., appointed to High Court, Scullin, J. H., 247 276-80; resigns, 280-3; Chairman of Inter- Seamen’s Compensation Act (1909), declared

state Commission, 283 invalid, 271

Pilcher, C. E. (M.L.C., K.C.), 94 Seamen’s Union, S. Smith secretary of, 73;

Policies and Potentates, on Lyne and the iso- proposes Senator Guthrie for Merchant thermic line, 187; on visit to U.S.A. and Shipping Conference, 185; in 1908 strike,

Canada, 194-5 199, 202; and New Zealand strike, 298-

Political Labor League, formation, 62. See 300

also Labor Party, N.S.W. See, Sir John, 38

Powers, C. (Sir Charles), Commonwealth Shand, A. B. (K.C.), 268 Crown Solicitor, 252; congratulated on Shannon, M. H., member of Royal Comconduct of Vend case, 269; appointed to mission on Sugar Industry, 266

High Court, 275-6, 278-80 Shaw, G. B., 209

Protection, Hughes on, 65, 117-18 Single Tax League, Hughes’s activity in,

Protectionist Party, Federal, 123-5, 127; split 30-2 between radical and conservative wings, Sleath, R., candidate for Federal Convention,

162 82, 84; supports Federal Bill, 94

Protectionist Party, N.S.W., 34-5, 37-9 Smith, Sir H. Llewellyn, 186 “Prudent Federationists”’, 82, 84 Smith, R. Bruce, in N.S.W. politics, 36, 37;

in first Commonwealth Parliament, 125, Quick, J. (Sir John), in first Federal Parlia- 127; opposes Immigration Restriction Bill, ment, 125; chairs Royal Commission on 133; opposes compulsory arbitration, 148;

Tariff, 169 supports National Defence League, 221 319

WILLIAM MORRIS HUGHES

Smith, Samuel, Secretary of Seamen’s Union, Telephone, introduction of automatic exsays Hughes owed election to Free Trade, changes, 248 57; sponsors Navigation Bill, 73; addresses Thomas, Josiah, one of “solid six”, 73; in

S.W.L.U., 101-2 first Commonwealth Parliament, 120; in

Smith, Sydney (M.H.R.), 126 Fisher Ministry, 175

Smith, W. H. Laird (M.H.R.), 299 Thomson, Dugald, in first Commonwealth

Socialism, Hughes on, 208-10 Parliament, 126; on Royal Commission on Socialist League. See Australian Socialist Navigation Bill, 180; selected for Merchant

League Shipping Conference, 185

“Solid Six’’, story of, 73, 75 Thursday Island, Japanese and Papuan pearl-

South African War, Hughes’s attitude, 97-8; ers at, 164 opposed by Higgins, 125; influence on de- ‘Tillett, Ben (of London Dockers’ Union),

fence policy, 136-7 addresses S.W.L.U., 101; Hughes meets in

Spence, W. G. (M.H.R.), on accommodation London, 192; leads coal-lumpers’ strike in of bush workers, 18; and Shearers’ Union, Sydney, 196 27; and Maritime Strike, 27; controls Toomey, J. M. (of Young A.S.U.), at August Worker, 49; on committee to draft man- 1893 conference, 42-3; announces appointifesto, 59; candidate for Federal Conven- ment of Hughes as organizer, 43; praises tion, 82, 84; in first Commonwealth Par- Hughes’s work, 44 liament, 120; supports compulsory military Trades and Labor Council, Sydney, enters training, 142; omitted from Watson Min- politics, 29-30; relations with Labor Party,

istry, I61 41; seeks basis for unity, 41; approves

Starke, H. E. (Sir Hayden), appears in Vend resolutions of November 1893 conference, appeal, 270; suggested for High Court, 283 46-7; in Commonwealth celebrations, 113. Stevedores’ Association, agreement with, 197; See also Australian Federation of Labor relations with S.W.L.U. strained, 240-1 Transport Workers’ Federation, regarded as

Strachan, Captain John, 70-1, 72 “combination”, 288; keeps wharf labourers

Strikes, Broken Hill (1892), 40; waterfront out of Brisbane strike, 297; and New (1907), 185-6; at Hamburg, 192; at New Zealand strike, 298

York, 194; coal-lumpers, 196; waterfront Trenwith, W. A., Senator, member of Fed(1908), 199-204; Broken Hill (1909), 225; eral Convention, 84; at Commonwealth inNewcastle coal strike, 211, 226-37; general, augural celebrations, 114 . Brisbane (1912), 297; waterfront, New Trolley, Draymen and Carters’ Union, forma-

Zealand (1913), 298-301 tion, 108; in 1908 strike, 199-203; gains Sugar case, 264, 266-7 from arbitration, 210 . Sugar industry, Royal Commission on, 265-7 Truth (Sydney), founded, 39; on reception Sunny Corner, N.S.W., Hughes at, 45 of Barton in Lang Division, 71-2

Sutton, John, 294 Tudor, F, (M.HLR.), in first Commonwealth

Sydney Coal Lumpers’ Association, strike of, Parliament, 121; in Fisher Ministry, 175

196; in 1909 coal strike, 233 Tumut, NS.W., visited in search for Fed-

207 Turner, Sir George, 124

Sydney Mail, articles by Hughes in, 189, 194, eral Capital, 150 Sydney Wharf Labourers’ Union (later Water-

side Workers’ Federation, Sydney Branch), Union Steamship Co., and New Zealand

weakness after 1890, 100-2; revival of, strike, 298-300

102-4; float in Commonwealth procession, United States of America, ‘‘the most astound-

114; closes books, 168; awards to, 197-9; ing things always happen there’, 80; rede-registered, 198; in 1908 strike, 199-204; lation of ‘Senate and Congress in, 85-6; gains from arbitration, 210; and coal strike, Hughes visits, 194 227-34; opposition to Hughes in, 233, 240-

1, 297; and Commonwealth Arbitration Vend case, 264, 267-70; controversy over Court, 296; and New Zealand strike, 298- conduct of, 289-94 301

Symon, Sir Josiah, suggested appointment to Wade, C. G. (Sir Charles), appears for ship

High Court, 275, 279; loses seat, 286 and coal owners, 198; seeks to mediate in

1908 strike, 201; his Industrial Disputes Tariff, Commonwealth, 129-33; Royal Com- Act, 224; and coal strike, 228-37; debate

mission on, 169 with Hughes, 287

Taylor, A. G., in N.S.W. Parliament, 39 Walker, J. T., Senator, 84 Taylor, John, opposes Hughes in Lang Divi- Want, J. H., opposes Federal Bill, gr: re-

sion, 57, 66, 67 turns to Cabinet, 92; absent from second

Teece, R. (K.C.), on conduct of Vend case, Federal referendum, 94

291-3 Ward, Sir Joseph, 187 320

INDEX

Warren, Dr W. E., 155 “White Australia’. See Immigration

Waterside Workers’ Federation, formation, Wilberforce, Battle of, 254-5 108-11; and coal strike, 226-7; might be Wilks, W. (M.H.R.), helps Hughes mend regarded as illegal combination, 288; awards roof, 20; in Free Trade Party, 156 secured by, 296-7; and New Zealand strike, Willis, W. N., in N.S.W. Parliament, 39;

299-301 provides horses for Commonwealth cele-

Watson, David, speaks for Hughes at West brations, 113

Sydney, 247; at conference on New Zealand Wilson, Havelock, at Merchant Shipping Con-

strike, 299 ference, 187; Hughes meets, 192

Watson, J. C., part in formation of “solid- Wireless, development of, 248 arity’ party, 40-2; at August 1893 con- Wise, B. R. (K.C.), in N.S.W. Parliament, ference, 43; at November 1893 conference, 36-7; engineers Reid’s fall, 74-5; candidate 47, 50; chairman of Australian Workman, for Federal Convention, 82, 84; controversy 49; supports modification of eight-hour with Hughes on Federation Bill, g1; deplank, 50; in 1894 Parliament, 58; attitude feated for Commonwealth Parliament, 120; to Federation, 79; SI; candidate for Fed- appears in Bellenger Vv. Hughes, 255; aperal Convention, 82, 84; and Anti-Conven- pears in Vend case, 268, 270, 290; sugtion Bill League, 91; addresses S.W.L.U., gested for High Court, 273, 274, 279 101; Leader of Labor Party in first Com- Wollaston, H.N.P. (Sir Harry), drafts Navimonwealth Parliament, 120, 122; on Im- gation Bill, 178-9; proposed as delegate migration Restriction Act, 134; supports to Merchant Shipping Conference, 184 compulsory military training, 142; moves Women’s franchise, effect of, on electioneer-

shelving of Naval Agreement Bill, 144; ing, 155

relations with Deakin, 157; forms Gov- Wood, —, manager of Hughes’s farm, 254 ernment, 158-62; and second Deakin Gov- Woods, J., elected Financial Secretary of ernment, 169; resigns leadership, 170; puts S.W.L.U., 298; and New Zealand strike

Hughes in charge of Navigation Bill, 179; 298 299 , ,

named as delegate to Merchant Shipping Worker, organ of A.W.U., 49; on Hughes's

Conference, 185; supports National Defence lection for L 2 hj , ;

League, 221; moves adoption of compulsory lee ton re nae bot 35 a , is win, 573 training at Interstate Conference, 222; advocates yne as first Federal Prime Mincredited with Fusion naval policy, 244 ister, 112; supports Hughes, 155 Watt, W. A. (M.H.R.), praises Hughes’s handling of coal strike, 238; encourages Yass, N.S.W., Hughes delegate for, at 1894 Holman’s opposition to extension of Com- Annual Conference, 50; visited in search

monwealth powers, 262 for Federal Capital, 150

Webster, W. (M.H.R.), 156 Yewen, A. G., Editor of New Order, 53, 55, West Sydney (Federal electorate), Hughes 56

stands for, 114; changing character of, 172, Young (N.S.W.) Trades Council, initiates

243-4; rowdyism in, 173 August 1893 conference, 42

321