EIGHT-HOURS ART UNION.

NZ Truth, Issue 70, 20 October 1906, Page 7

EIGHT-HOURS ART UNION.

The Melbourne Labor Lottery. What Becomes of the Money ? information Unavailable. . The action of the Chief Secretary of ■ Victoria, apparently "off his own bat," m refusing the application of the EifihtHours' Anniversary Committee (of Melbourne) for authority to hpld the cus- j tomary art union m connection with the coming demonstration, will be variously i viewed. In some quarters it may be looked upon as an attempt to curry favor with the "unco guid/' who are seemingly able just now IN NOISY INFLUENCE, but who certainly do not represent the wholesome sentiment of the community. Yet, m view of certain developments which have arisen m consequence of special investigation made by a "Truth" representative, it does not appear that the individuals who m the recent past have had the management of the art union! are the proper persons to be entrusted with so large a Responsibility. This does not mean an attack upon these officials In their corporate or individual capacities. It is, rather, the direct outcome of the PECULIAR METHODS OF SECRECY adopted respecting the disposal oil the money subscribed by the public. It was stated at the draw-ing of the art union last year that more than 200,000 tickets were sold. This . means that the purchasers of tickets subscribed no less a sum than £10,000, taking tho price of each ticket as being Is, or, # after deducting the cost ot advertising,' commisfliong on the sale of tickets, and management generally, say £8000. But the charities, it 1 is asserted, only received £.1500, and the prize money (excluding the prizes m "kind," most of which were donated) probably did . not amount to more than another £1500; or £300O ! m all. What BECAME OF THK BALANCE of £5000 ? In order to settle tliis public question satisfactorily, a . "Truth" reporter the other night called upoix Oharles j Harris', the secretary of the committee, and made the inquiry on behali! of the subscribers; The secretary- directly and deliberately declined to afford any rational and satisfactory explanation. He remarked, "We furnish the various unions with particulars, but we don't recognise the right of anyone else to receive the information." Now. this is begging the whole question. Possibly not 25 per cent. of the purchasers of the art union tickets last year, or upon any previous occasions, were ■members of any trades union connected with the Melbourne Trades Hall Council. As a member of the public, every purchaser of a ticket was LEGALLY AND MORALLY ENTITLED to be informed of what became of the money subscribed. But he or she is not told. "You have no right to the information." The ticket buyer cannot be expected to Interview every secretary of 1 every trades union to ascertain, the manner m which the money was disposed and allotted. Each subscriber is personally entitled to the information direct! from the chief executive officer, who9e jname appeared on the tickets. That information is not forthcoming. ' Did the ["profits" of the art union, if there were (any, ro into the coffers of the trades j unions ? Were they devoted to a Federal tor State or conjoined political fighting; ; fund ? Or how were they distributed "? The public is entitled to the fullest and mo»t explicit information; Until that is disclosed, there cannot bo any eon f' ' nee m any future art. union, if on* should, after, all, b« sanction** by the authori'tiCfe