Trade Unions and the Military Service Act.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15774, 15 December 1916, Page 6

Trade Unions and the Military Service Act.

The decision of the local Trannvaymen's Union to send to the "Anti-conscrip-tion" Conference arranged by the Red Fed organisations a delegate instructed to vote against the Military Scrvicc Act has caused no littlo surprise and

indignation amongst the local public. We are not disposed to criticise the

tramwaymen as a body very severely. Of those who voted over 40 per cent, felt strongly enough about the matterto oppose the idea that their delegate should support the Red Fed opposition to tho Act. Of the remainder, a proportion must certainly have voted without a full understanding of the position, without realising that New Zealand must carry out her undertaking, and that without the Military Scrvice Act she cannot carry it out. Therefore we believe that a majority of ' the tramwaymen are in the last analysis not out of sympathy Trith public opinion on this important subject, and oven amongst the minority remainder there must be many who are merely the thoughtless dupes of the leading spirit of the Union. It seems rather absurd that the secretary of the Federation of Labour, and the author of the sublime idea of "dignified " neutrality," should have any influence over a single intelligent human being, but it is unhappily a. fact that he, and other professional Labour leaders like him, are quite clever enough to influence thoughtless unionists and to lead them by the no6e. Resistance to the leadership of such men is almost impossible within tho ranks of the union, for resistance is always treated as disloyalty to unionism, and no unionist daro take up an independent attitude, even at a union meeting, without the risk of being treated as a "scab" or a marked man. Terrorism accounts for many of the things in trade-unionism that astonish the public, for the public does not realise how sorious a misfortune it is for a unionist to incur tho displeasure of the bosses of Labour, who have ample means, and a bitter will to use those means, to punish open dissent. In the present case the 6tate of public opinion, and the certainty that the Government mean business, have encouraged a measure of open opposition to the Red Fed policy respecting the Act. In Kaitangata, for example, some of the miners bluntly declared that if they "were asked to strike against tho Act they would refuse. Their union, the Dunedin Drivers' Union, and the Otago Trades Council, have refused the Red Feds' invitation to send delegates to the Conference. Most people will wonder why the Government should allow such a conference to be held at all. In normal times it is right that there should be perfect liberty for anyone to hold a meeting to urge the repeal of any Act, but there is no excuse whatever, in this time of war, for the extension of such a license to those who wish to urge the repeal of the Act which is essential to the discharge by this country of the vitally important duty of assisting to defeat the enemy threatening our liberties. The agitation for repeal is not bona fide. Those who are engineering the agitation know that this Act, so recently passed by an almost unanimous Parliament, and indisputably at the command of a united nation, cannot and will not be repealed until the war is over. Their purpose is simply to create disaffection and unrest and industrial disturbance, and to hamper the Government in the carrying out of the purposes of the Act. Everyone knows that this is so, and consequently the proposed conference should receive the attention of the Government. The people calling the conference have given the public no reason to suspect them of being animated by patriotism and public spirit. Therefore the Government* should take steps to see that the Conference is held under supervision by some competent public authority. indeed, it is a question for serious consideration the Government should not proclaim such conferences and meetings as illegal assemblies. At the present time no meeting to discuss the repeal of the Act should be held, and a private meeting is even more to be reprehended than one held in public. No loyal or law-abiding person can wish to hold secret meetings for the purpose; to desire to hold a secret or private meeting to discuss the subject should be treated by the Government for what is is in fact, namely, a meeting not inspired by motives favourable to tho good of the realm. The agitation against repeal should be suppressed.