“You prefer to be left uninterrupted to preach this new socialistic nonsense?”

“Why not, if it is sound?  And if it isn’t sound, why not?  Surely your side isn’t afraid of discussion if it knows it’s right.”

“Do you really think that we should leave our individual rights to be decided upon by an ignorant mob?”

“My individual rights are at the mercy of ignorant individuals at present,” said Ned.  “I am not allowed to work if I happen to have given offence to a handful of squatters.”

“I think you exaggerate,” answered Strong.  “I know that some pastoralists are very vindictive but I regard most of them as honorable men incapable of a contemptible action.”

“Of course they are,” said Ned.  “The only thing is what do they call contemptible?  You and I are very friendly, just now, Mr. Strong.  You’re not small enough to feel any hatred just because I talk a bit straight but you know very well that you’d regard it as quite square to freeze me out because I do talk straight.”

The two men looked into each other’s eyes.  Strong began to respect this outspoken bushman.

“I think that one of the most fundamental of all rights in any civilised society is the right of a man to employ whom he likes at any terms and under any conditions that he can get men to enter his employment.  It seems to me that without this right the very right to private property itself is disputed for in civilisation private property does not mean only a hoard, stored up for future use, but savings accumulated to carry on the industrial operations of civilisation.  These savings have been prompted by the assurance that society will protect the man who saves in making, with the man who has not saved, the contracts necessary to carry on industry, unhampered by the interference of outsiders.  That seems to me, I repeat, a fundamental right essential to the very existence of society.  The man who disputes it seems to me an enemy of society.  Whether he is right or wrong, or whether society itself is right or wrong, is another question with which, as it is a mere theory, practical men have nothing to do.”  Strong had only been fencing in his talk before.  Now that he was ready he stated his position, quite coolly, with a quiet emphasis that made his line of argument clear as day.

“Then why confer at all, under any conditions, oven if unionists admitted all this?” asked Ned.

“Simply for convenience.  Some of our members object to any conference but the general opinion is that it does not involve a sacrifice of principle to discuss details provided principles are admitted.  In the same way, some favoured the employment of men at any wage arranged between the individual man and hie employer, but the general opinion was that it is advisable and convenient for pastoralists in the same district to pay the same wages.”

“Then the pastoralists may combine but the bushmen mayn’t.”