THOUSANDS DAILY

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 133, 7 June 1932, Page 5

THOUSANDS DAILY

Lang's Personal Opponent,

Federal Labour's Appeal.

SPEECHES IN N.S.W.

"NO ORDINARY ELECTION."

ASSAULT ON LANGISM,

FEDERAL LABOUR'S PART

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, June 4

Xew South Wales is now struggling in the throes of a desperate election campaign, and Sydney is the vortex of the political maelstrom. The time is short, for between the delivery of Mr. Stevens' policy speech on May 25 and June 11, the date for polling, only about a fortnight intervenes. Into that brief space is being packed an almost incalculable amount of physical and (let us hope) intellectual energy. There are 305 candidates offering themselves, and every one has at least five speakers in support, addressing on the average more than two meetings a clay. The great army of candidates and camp followers who' have entered on this compaign is estimated at 10,000, and it is calculated that before polling day the electors of this State will have been called upon to listen to nearly 5000 speeches every 24 hours, or over 00,000 speeches in all. At all events, the people of New South Wales will not be able to complain that they have been left in ignorance of the issues involved. Science and art have been summoned to the aid of oratory — aeroplanes, radios, talkie "shorts," and lantern slides are a few of the. mechanical aids that have been requisitioned — and the amount of journalistic activity devoted to the various causes simply defies computation. There is good reason for these extraordinary efforts, for this is no ordinary election. As Mr. Stevens told the Constitutional Association of New South Wales on Monday last, to-day there is no room for honest differences of opinion on abstractions or theoretical principles. On former occasions the electors have been able to discuss the merits of one policy ngainst another. To-day the issue is as between "the defiance of the law and its observance, between resistance to constituted authority and compliance with it." The question really is whether "this young democracy" shall remain faithful to its traditions or "whether it will embark on a career of recklessness, shamclessnoss, and sheer madness" which would involve not only the abandonment of all existing political and social institutions, but also the repudiation of "all the canons of the moral code that have hitherto regulated our conduct as a nation."

It will, of course, be objected that this is the view of only one section of the community. But it must be remembered that these views are held just as strongly by the Australian Labour party leaders as by Mr. Stevens or any member of the U.A.P. and C.P. alliance. It may be difficult for New Zealanders to realise the point of view of the antiLang parties here.; but Mr. Scullin and Mr. Lyons are entirely in accord with Mr. Stevens and the present New South Wales Government in their conviction that Langism is the greatest menace that Australian democracy has ever had to face, and that until it is destroyed there is no possibility of financial recovery or prosperity for the Commonwealth. In the eyes of its opponents, the Lang Cabinet was not so much a Government in the ordinary sense as a body of political gangsters, exploiting wage-earners and capitalists alike, corrupt and unprincipled, and aiming at social revolution and the final establishment of a permanent industrial and political tyranny on Bolshevik lines. Whether these views are justified or not, they are reflected not more clearly and strongly in the speeches of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Bruxner than in the election addresses of the representatives of Labour who have remained faithful to the traditions and principles of the A.L.P. Realising that the political and financial credit of Australia is at stake, and that the chance of ite recovery depends upon the overthrow of Langism, Mr. Lyons, accompanied by several of hie colleagues and a large party of Federal members from Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, hae come to New South Wales to take an active part in the campaign. Mr. Lyons' Warning. The point of view of the Federal Government was expressed by Mr. Lyons last week at Goulburn, when ho told his audience: "If Mr. Lang is returned to office and ie permitted to carry out his policy, all the other Governmente might a« well fold their hands in their laps and wait for the final crash." He deecribed the Lang Government ae "the most disastrous Government that has ever held office in the Commonwealth or in any of the States," and in spite of warnings from friends that he wa* "dealing with a mad dog" and had better leave him alone,' he and his colleagues had decided that there was no room for "kid glove methods" in handling Langiriin. He warned the people of New South Wales that the issue before them is plain —"whether they wish to continue the wonderful work of rehabilitation that has already been achieved, or whether they are content to let their State, and consequently the whole of Australia, be ruined." The Prime Minister of Australia could hnrdly carry his denunciation of Lang-i.-iin further than this, but the leaders of the State branch of the Australian Labour party have naturally given their speeches a more definite and personal tone. Foremost among these is Mr. J. I- , . Coates, M.L.C., leader of the State iraneh of the A.L.P. In an election uldress broadcast last week he declared that the duty of the A.L.P. is "to break Lang's stranglehold on the throat of

Labour and democracy"; he denounced the malign influence of "the inner group at the Trades Hall," consisting of Garden, Graves and their personal friends; and he charged the Lang Government in one comprehensive sentence with "intimidation and victimisation, repudiation, treachery, industrial repression and tyranny,"

Tho "sinister and unsavory charges" which Mr. Stevens' commissions are now investigating also received attention from Mr. Coates, and these scandals have naturally played a prominent part in the A.L.1 , , campaign speeches, For the Australian Labour party rightly regards Lang as a traitor and a wrecker, who, having destroyed the Storey Labour Government, and with Mr. Bcasley's help ousted the Scullin Government from power, has now ruined Labour in his own State by corruption and tyranny. This line of attack has been adopted with great success by Mr. P. Colcman, who is standing against Lang in his own electorate on behalf of the A.L.P. At Auburn, Lang's stronghold, where, to quote the "Sun," "he would have been a brave man who would have dared to attack Lang two years ago," Mr. Coleman, who is deputy-leader of the A.L.P. in N.S.W., declared that Lang is "the greatest enemy that Labour ever had," described the Lang policy a<3 "sound and fury, signifying nothing," and roused a huge audience to enthusiasm when he asked was Lang right in paying his politicians in cash and allowing widows and children to starve? Was Lang right in finding rich jobs for his political friends and nothing for tho unemployed? , But perhaps the most damaging of all the attacks upon Lang, his plan, and his methods has been delivered by the ex-Federal Treasurer, Mr. Theodore. Whatever else may be said for or against Theodore, there is no question α-bout his intellectual ability or hie rhetorical skill, and last week in a broadcast address to the electors he ' exploded the Lang myth" to some purpose. To Theodore "Lang's treachery to the Labour movement is his greatest crime," but lie does not regard Lang as having sufficient courage or ability to work out his own policy by himself. He has allied himself with "a gang of reckless militants/' who, with his aid and connivance, have "tricked, intrigued, terrorised and corrupted their way into complete dominance of the State Labour movement. Garden, Graves, Donald Grant and "a score of irresponsible Reds" constitute the "inner circle at the Trades Hall, and they have made of Lang their "pliant tool." Lawless, ambitious, greedy and reckless, he has willingly lent himself to their purposes, and they in turn have magnified him and glorified his plan till it in the eyes of his foolish dupes has become a thing of mystic significance, the embodiment of all the public virtues, the highest achievement of the wisest of men. Anyone who has watched the crowds of men and women marching in the Langite processions through the streets and heard them chant their jubilant incantation "Lang is right!" will feel that there is no exaggeration. Yet in Theodore's opinion Lang is, after all, "just a, stodgy mediocrity with a warped mentality and a mean soul."

Of course, the Labour party, having regard to its own principles —which have been set forth at length by Scullin, Coates, Coleman and others in a thoroughly rational and moderate programme—has put up A.L.P. candidates against Langites, and also against representatives of the U.A.P. and the C.P. But it is most significant that Theodore and the other A.L.P. leaders have made no attempt to induce their followers to give their second preference votes to Lang—indeed they have publicly declared that they do not mean to do so. They would far rather see Stevens than Lang installed in power. Last Saturday night a meeting of over 400 delegates of branches of the A.L.P. passed a series of resolutions to the effect that "there can be no compromise with the breuk-away Lang plan faction," that the return of Lang to power would involve N.S.W. and all Australia in "irreparable disaster," and that the workers must rally at the polls to face the menace to their rights and liberties threatened by "the infamous Lang faction dictatorship." All this may help my readers to understand how far Lang has wandered from the truth in describing himself as standing for Labour, or posing as the leader of the Labour party in New South Wales.