KNIGHTS OF LABOUR AND MARITIME COUNCIL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 161, 10 July 1890, Page 2

KNIGHTS OF LABOUR AND MARITIME COUNCIL.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I was in hopes that the extraordinarily silly conduct of the leaders of the Maritime Council would have been permitted to pass into oblivion, after the Auckland Trades Council passed their resolution allowing that for their part they looked upon the Knights as a labour organisation of a very superior character. That resolution was passed by the Trades Council unanimously, the President (Mr Mills) alone objecting to it. His proposal to adjourn for a fortnight the Council's decision as to whether the Knights were a labour organisation or nob, in order to " take the advice of the Maritime Council," was so extraordinary that to my mind it argued a temporary aberration of intellect. Ib is said, " Answer not a fool according to his folly," and yet Mr Mills positively proposed to ask the very body who had started the silly statement to decide as to whether the Auckland Trades Council should decide in a similarly silly manner. Fortunately for tho Knights, the Council determined to decide for themselves, and they did so. Your correspondent Mr Kirkup appears to write in anger. Wby,should he ? Is it the duty of the Maritime Council not only to dictate to those Unions affiliated with ib, but also to refuse to those nob affiliated with ib the right to speak their minds ? He writes of my " ungentlemanly" and "insulting " conduct. It pains me to think that Mr Kirkup, whom I do nob know and never saw to my knowledge, should use such epithets to me after my thirty years' residence in this colony, twenty-five years of which have been devotod to the noble cause of social and industrial reform. Never in the whole course of my life have I ever been accused in such" a manner, and I trust he will see fit to withdraw the remark. I did nob use the words he credits me with. I did nob say that the doputa-' tion from the Knights did not care a snap of bhe finger for the Moricimo Council. I said the Order of the Knights of Labour didn't care a snap of the linger for tho views it held concerning themselves, which is a horse of quite another colour. Ib seems to me, however, that Mr Kirkup thinks that the Maritime Council is quite justified in behaving iv a supremely silly manner, and that if the Knights mildly remark that the Maritime Council is at liberty to hold any view it pleases as far as the Knights are concerned, as the latter do not care one dump what they think, then tho Knights are guilty of "insolence" and " ungentlemanly-like conduct" in so speaking. Ib was the Auckland Trades Council, at which were assembled delegates from all Unions not affiliated with the Maritime Council, thab the Knights desired bhe decision to come from, because they natui-. ally desired to work in fellowship with the local trades unions. Those Unions affiliated with the Maritime Council passed resolutions endorsing the silly statement of that Council. Whether they did this after intelligently discussing the question, or whether they did it at the j dictation of the Council, of course I know not. The result of Mr Kirkup's analysation of the objects of the Knights and those of Trades Unions is this : That the Knights aim at the lofty ideal depicted by Bellamy in " Looking Backward ;" but the loftiest ideal of the Unions is to secure "short hours of labour and high wages." This analysis is given in a contemptuous manrier, as if the aim of the Unions was necessarily and actually thus infinitely higher, better, and more useful than the aim of bhe Knights. He is, however, curiously right; Bellamy's ideal, with cartain modifications, is the ideal of the Knights, and the Unions are quite welcome to enjoy their ideal of wages and hours. During the lasb few weeks I have received many communications from different Unions, informing me that they considered the highest objects of Unionism were "to secure shorter hours of labour andhigh wages." Well, allow me to point out precisely the dilemma this puts the workers in. It tacitly allows this, that they allow that they are,'and that they desire to remain, a working class ; that is, a separate, distinct, and lower order of beings to those they have to work for. Ib also allows that Providence has brought them into this world to work from morning to night and all the years of their lives, nob for themselves, but to enrich employers. They may work ever so hard, but they are only to get out of bhe value.of their labour just so much as they can squeeze out of bhe employers or what he cares to give them. Their ideal state of perfect industrial happiness is, nob to be their own masters and owners of all the wealth produced by their own labour, but to. pecupy ths old servile position of servant to a master. Ib is the knowledge of this peculiar conservative instinct in the working classes thab enables the conservative and privileged class to make just whatever use they like of them, and keep them in everlasting There is no hope of social or industrial reform, I am afraid, in this generation, if the' working classes have no higher ideal than wages and hours of work. They have yet to learn that there should be no working class, because nature intended thab all should work or starve. When they learn this vital truth, they will hold their heads up and demand their rights ; they will then enjoy the just fruits of their labour, and not be beholden to a master, who calmly, and as a matter of course, seizes the larger portion of the value of the labour-of his servant, leaving the ■ unfortunate worker only barely enough to supply himself ana his family with the necessaries of life, and pay the crushing tax,as placed upon him by the Government, acting under the influence of those very masters and a burden which they themselves actually escapo.-lam.etc, H. W. Fabnall.