THE UNITY CONGRESS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 179, 29 July 1913, Page 7

THE UNITY CONGRESS.

1 (To the Editor.) i Sir, —Mr Mcßrine seems to consider - that all preliminaries leading up to the J Congress were all that could be desired; : but there is another point of view. The i January conference did not represent all I sections of labour. This stands out - clearly in the personnel of the committee - elected. The Federation of Labour had t a majority far above its numerical J strength. Why Messrs Ross, Holland, 3 Praser, and Mills were members of that r committee is hard to understand. Mr I Fraser ceased to represent labour when 3 the Auckland labourers withdrew from 3 the Federation. Mr Mills is a profes--3 sional, and may leave X.Z. at any time, c Mr Ross has gone, Mr Holland may go; t both are journalists. The others are offit cials whose interests are not precisely - identical with those of the actual works ers. The committee invested themselves t with undue powers; all copy on Unitj s proposals was censored by them; onlj y authorised copy was allowed to appeal 0 in the official organ of the Federation i- The articles were not propositions, bul t Bjerely in praise of unity, and mostly bj c Mr Hickey, and in the "Unity Bulletin' I. by Mr Mills. The circulars and leaflets s sent out were vague and unsatisfactory s save a few., a very few, on the basis of s unity. I have before mc copies of al s matter issued, including the constitution c ten long columns closely printed. Whal c union had a copy of it? VVhat union was n consulted as to what questions shoiilc 1. come before the Congress? Docs Mi II Mcßrine know of any? Some delegate.' c received copies cf the constitution jusi d prior to the date of the Congress—mosi r of them when- they arrived in Wellington j, Clause VII., page 8, of the constitution a reads: — VIL—STBIKKS. v No notional industrial department shnl 1 have the power to strike without first seek " ing tbe co-operation of the National Execn 0 tive in tui effort to secure a settlement. s No union shall Involve a local indnstria t department in any strike without first plac c iujj the matter unreservedly in the hands o: , the local industrial department- No loci 1 industrial department shall involve it! t national Industrial department in any striki c witiiont first placing the matter unreserved!.' II in the hands of Its national department; au , . . no national industrial department shall Iv l » volve the United Federation of Labour ii any strike without placing the matter un c reservedly in the of the nationa executive, the decision in each case to b< c iinal.

The United Federation of Labour will employ the strike weapon, local, general, or national, whenever the circumstances demand each action. In the event of a toekont or authorised strike, the full strength of the United Federation of Labour shall be at the call of the national executive in support of the section affected.

This clause, I am informed, was carried. The word unreservedly gives officials absolute power, and is final. Now the question is not one of strikes only! the question is, Are unionists to give up the right to ballot on any matter, and be led, unreservedly, without question, by officials? Socialists, I thought, were opposed to the placing of autocratic power in the hands of individuals: and rightly so, for reasons too numerous to mention. As to the Congress, it was too big, party feeling-was intense, the means used by persons, for themsehree and party, to get there -was . The crowd was ewayed by party orators, and cheered and sang in their excitement. Which party -won? Which party got all they wanted ? Where did the attempt at

tion to the fact that a political party was established. To mc it is laughable and depressing. The Socialists suddenly gulped the objectionable palliative. One feels inclined to call them, not revolutionary, but chameleon Socialists. They might, of course, have agreed to political action, as it is the wish of a largo section of labour. But to capture official positions—a violent opponent of all but direct action being elected secretary had treasurer. Looking at the matter in every way. weighing the evidence carefully—l have a great quantity—noting who the persons are -who were elected officials, one is reluctantly foroed to the opinion that the whole thing 'was a trick. I am sorry that unity -was not achieved. It is disappointing and depressing. The opportunity was very favourable. The Socialist section would have won unstinted applause if they had only given way, even by suggesting a national referendum: if only for unity, and all that unity means to those who toil to live. This is all of necessity brief, on account of space, but it is earnest, honest, and unbiassed as possible. I am not a member of either party. I was biassed against the United Labonr party on account of the single tax, private enterprise, element; but one must admit that the failure does not lie upon them. Let mc appeal to all parties. Discuss the report at special meetings of the unions called for that purpose only. Stop wirepulling, packing meetings, and unclean tactics. Take a ballot and get the decision of the majority. To unionists I would say. "Attend the meetings of yonr union, guard your funds, pot not yonr faith in individuals. Leaders have left the fold before to-day to serve their own interests; you have too much at stake to take any chances." —I am, etc., gl Mcknight.