STIFFENING THEIR BACKS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 233, 2 October 1925, Page 6

STIFFENING THEIR BACKS.

We are delighted to be able to

chronicle a very remarkable change in the tone which certain responsible Labour leaders in Australia are now adopting in regard to the industrial situation, and more particularly the British (seamen's strike. In the first place, Mr. Lang, the, Xew South Wales Labour Premier, in reply to an "ultimatum"' from the Seamen's Union demanding the abolition

of certain waterside workers' unions, told the Legislative Assembly that neither his Government nor the Parliamentary Labour party which he leads is prepared to accept dictation from the Seamen's Union or from Messrs. Walsh and Johnson, the "uncrowned kings" of

that organisation. But even more emphatic and significant than this is the manifesto issued by the Waterside Workers' Federation at Sydney concerning the strike. The President states that his organisation simply refuses to be drawn into a quarrel which is not of its own making, on behalf of those who have "chosen to take direct action 12.000 miles from the scene of dispute." He further

observes with some force that the Federation has never been consulted about the dispute, and it does not sec why it should accept the guidance of "self-appointed authorities" on such a matter as this. In conclusion, the manifesto rather caustically recommends the seamen to "take their disputes where they belong," as the Australian unions have enough to do to fight their own battles and to keep their own officials in order. The most obvious explanation of this sudden reversal of •'form" on the part of Mr. Lang and his friends is that they are rather more than tired of the domineering manner and the autocratic methods which seem natural to Mr Johnson and Mr. .Walsh. It has alwav. seemed to us very mysterious that any number of men who. as individuals in the ordinary business of life, are presumably not lacking in self-assertiveness or self-respect, should permit themselves as organised bodies to be dragooned by irresponsible outsiders in the dictatorial fashion .so dear to Mr. Walsh's heart. Possibly even the patient and longsuffering Mr. Lang is weary of his enforced subservience, and he is seizing

upon the strong protests wlt'ch may now be heard from every section of the Australian public against the WalshJohnson autocracy, to make a bold bid for freedom and independence. It is also probable that the near approach of the elections, and the necessity for dissociating the orthodox Labour party publicly from the extremists and "leftwingers" lias had something to do with the unexpected but welcome stiffening of Mr. Lang's back. But it may also be suggested that the strong tone now being adopted by the British Labour party and its leaders toward the Communists and revolutionaries at Home as to some extent responsible for Mr. Lang's attitude. We believe that Mr. Ramsay MaeDonald's clear and forcible repudiation of the Communists at the Labour Conference will have a most salutary effect upon public feeling among the j industrialists throughout the Empire, and particularly iv Australia. So far as this present strike is concerned, to insist. . as Mr. Lang has done, that Walsh and Johnson are not Communists, is wholly irrelevant to the question at issue. They may not lie Communists theoretically, but they undoubtedly preach and cottnj tcnancc a policy subversive of law and , order, and destructive of all constitutional authority; and whatever may bo the precise moaning or motive of Mr. Lang's action, his determination to resist any further encroachment by these selfappointed dictators is a great gain for the Commonwealth and the Australian Labour party.