“We don’t object to the bushmen forming unions.  We claim the right to employ men without asking whether they are unionist or non-unionist.”

“Which means,” said Ned, “the right to victimise unionists.”

“How is that?” asked Strong.

“We know how.  Do you suppose for a moment, Mr. Strong, that ideas spring up with nothing behind them?  All those who are acquainted with the history of unionism know that ‘close unionism,’ the refusal to work with non-unionists, arose from the persistent preference given by employers to non-unionists, which was a victimising of unionists.”

“That may have been once, but things are different now,” answered Strong.

“They are not different now.  Wherever employers have an opportunity they have a tendency to weed out unionists.  I could give you scores of instances of it being done.  The black list is bad enough now.  It would be a regular terrorism if there was nothing to restrain the employer.  Then down would come wages, up would go hours and in would come the Chinese.  If it is a principle with you, it is existence itself with us.”

“I think the pastoralists would agree not to victimise, as you call it,” said Strong, after thinking a minute.

“Who is to say?  How are we to know?” answered Ned.  “Supposing, Mr. Strong, you and I had a dispute in which we both believed ourselves right would you regard it as a fair settlement to submit the whole thing, without any exception, to an arbiter whom we both chose and both believed to be fair?”

“Certainly I should,” said Strong.

“The whole dispute, no matter what it was?  You’d think it fair to leave it all to the arbiter?”

“Certainly.”

“Then why not leave ‘freedom of contract’ to arbitration?” demanded Ned.  “You say you are right.  We say we are right.  We have offered to go to arbitration on the whole dispute, keeping nothing back.  We have pledged ourselves to stand by the arbitration.  Isn’t that honest and fair?  What could be fairer?  It may be that we have taken a wrong method against victimising in close unionism.  But it cannot be that we should not have some defence against victimising, and close unionism is the only defence we have as yet, that any union has had, anywhere, except in Sheffield and I don’t suppose you want rattening to start here.  Why not arbitrate?”

“It is a question of principle,” answered Strong, looking Ned in the face.

“That means you’ll fight it out,” commented Ned, rising and picking up his hat.  Then he put his foot on his chair and, leaning on his knee, thus expressed his inward thoughts:  “You can fight if you like but when it’s all over you’ll remember what I say and know it’s the straight wire.  You’ve been swallowing the fairy tales about ours being a union of pressed men but you will see your mistake, believe me.  You may whip us; you’ve got the Government and the police and the P.M.’s and the money and