Such were the general features of the Act that after three years of endeavour was passed at the end of 1894 and came into force in 1895. It passed amid steady opposition from employers and with extremely little support from public opinion. In 1900, after five years’ experience of its workings, when a consolidated and amended Act was introduced, only one voice was lifted to attack its general principle. Not from its neighbours, who are intimate with the workings of it, but from this side of the ocean have come the attacks to which it has been exposed. It has been contended, again and again, by English newspapers that the measure is unduly favourable to trade unions, a contention much strengthened in appearance by the fact that in various trades awards have been made requiring employers to give preference to unionists, so long as the union can supply men qualified and ready to fill vacancies. Such awards, however, are by no means invariable; each case is tried on its merits, and the Court is largely guided by the general custom of each trade. It must be borne in mind also that the position of a New Zealand union is very different from that of a British union, and that this difference has been largely brought about by the colonial law, in the interest not of the union but of public peace and convenience. As Mr Reeves justly remarks: “In New Zealand the community, mainly for the purpose of self protection, has deprived trade unionists of the right of striking—of the sacred right of insurrection to which all workmen rightly or wrongly believe that they owe most of what lifts them above serfdom. The Arbitration Act, moreover, deliberately encourages workmen to organise. When, in obedience to the law, they renounce striking and register as industrial unions, it does not seem amiss that they should receive some special consideration. Their exertions and outlay in successfully conducting arbitration cases benefit non-unionists as well as themselves, though the non-unionists have done nothing to help them. Nor need the preference entail any hardship to their employers. Non-unionist labour is usually valued either because it is cheaper or because it is more peaceable. But under the Arbitration law non-unionists must get the same pay as unionists, and unionist strikes are abolished. It is only the non-unionists (in a trade where there is no award in force) who can strike, and who—though rarely and then only in petty groups—do. They are, therefore, to that extent, the more dangerous servants of the two. Nor, be it noted, does an employer who has only non-union men in his factory stand clear of the Act. Nor again can he take himself out of it by discharging his union hands and pleading that he has none in his employ. If an award has been made dealing with the trade in his district, he is bound by it as much as his competitors who employ union labour.”[84]