MR. HUNTER ANSWERED

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 119, 13 February 1926, Page 10

MR. HUNTER ANSWERED

ALLIANCE OF LABOUR VERSION REPRESENTATIVE ON ARBITRATION COURT WHAT MR. ROBERTS HAS TO SAY The correspondence between Mr. Hiram Hunter, workers’ representative on the Arbitration Court and candidate for re-elec-tion, and Mr. J. Roberts, secretary of tho Alliance of Labour, Is carried a stage further to-day. Mr. Roberts, in a letter below, replies to the charges made by Mr. Hunter In the letter published in yesterday’s issue of •‘The Dominion.” (To the Editor.)

Sir,—ln your issue of to-day, you published in extenso another abusive tirade, mainly an attack on. myself, from Mr. Hunter, who is seeking re-election as .workers’ representative on the Court of Arbitration. At the outset, I have to apologise to the wage-workers of New Zealand for this unseemly wrangle in the columns of the capitalistic Press throughout New Zealand. I assure them .that it is not of my seeking. I am compelled to reply, as the attack made by Mr. Hunter is not on the Labour organisations only, but it is also an attack on my personal character. I am doubtful indeed as. to whether it is even the best policy on my own behalf to reply to Mr. Hunter’s journalistic nightmare, for such all reasonable men and women throughout New Zealand will acclaim it to bo. However, I intend to bo as brief as possible in my reply to Mr. Hunter’s many allegations. In the first place, Mr. Hunter says the only reason that he wrote as he did was to drag me from my Star Chamber which I created in Wellington. Permit me to inform Mr. Hunter through your paper that he was a party himself to creating what he now calls “my Star Chamber," and which he now condemns, and further that he was a party to my election as secretary of the New Zealand Alliance of Labour. I would like him to be more specific, and state where at any time the Alliance of Labour has resorted to Star Chamber methods. Mr. •Hunter knows quite well that this accusation is absolutely untrue. However, 1 will be charitable, and assume that these absurd assertions are due to the fact that Mr. Hunter in his adversity is suffering a serious mental lapse. I beg to draw the attention of your readers to a statement in the latter part of the first paragraph of his letter: "It is quite evident," he says, “that I salted your hide and made you smart to some purpose." Is this the logic of the man who occupies the highest position that Labour can bestow upon anybody in the civil courts of New Zealand ? This indicates that this man has either the ego over-developed or that he is, as already stated, suffering from some mental aberration, for I assure those of your readers who had patience to wade through his last screed that after I had road it I felt in a mood more of sorrow than of anger for Mr. Hunter., May I point out, sir, that with reference to the official letter to Mr. Hunter from the Alliance of Labour he has not even yet the common sense to understand what had been done by the Alliance of Labour in regard to the workers' representative on the Court of Arbitration. At a meeting held on December 22, this question was discussed, and that meeting decided to allow the question of nomination to the affiliations. The affiliations acted accordingTv, and at the annual meeting, nt which there was a representative from each of the affiliations, these delegates acted on their right and asked, that the question as to whom the Alliance of Labour should recommend in the actual selection by vote for a workers’ representative on the Court, should be discussed. The overwhelming majority of these delegates, all of whom had a mandate from their unions, supported Mr. A. L. Monteith, and as secretary of the Alliance of Labour I was instructed to forward a circular accordingly. Now, where are the Star Chamber methods about . which Mr. Hunter speaks? The Alliance of Labour submitted the question to its affiliations, and the affiliations turned down Mr. Hunter. Surely there is no reason for a personal attack on the, secretary of an organisation if the affiliations of that organisation decide that Mr. Monteith is a more capable man to represent them than Mr. Hunter is. With reference to the question of inviting Mr. Hunter to the annual meet ihg, he knows quite well that I could not invite him to that meeting; neither could I invite Mr. A. L. Monteith to attend. Had I done so, both of these gentlemen would only represent. themselves, and acording to the constitution of the Alliance of Labour only affiliations oan be represented. Mr. Hunter states that the Alliance of Labour does not control 20 per cent, of the voting strength of the unions. I must again disagree with Mr. Hunter and say that the AJlianco of Labour does not control the voting strength of any organisation. The Alliance of Labour merely makes a recommendation, but, unlike Mr. Hunter, the affiliations are sufficiently loyal to the organisation to vote according to the recommendation made. However, assuming that Mr. Hunter is correct, and that we only control 20 per cent, of the workers, why is Mr. Hunter so angry? Why so much abuse and absurd assertions? Why all the talk of Star Chamber methods this time, when at the last election Mr, Hunter wrote a letter thanking the Alliance of Labour for puttin? him in the position held for the past two years. Surely your readers will now realise that this man and his tirades cannot be taken seriously. I deem it necessary to make a few remarks on Mr. Hunter’s other personal accusations. For instance, amongst other things, he tells your readers that he denounced me to my face in 1916. Fortunately a report of the conference was taken by a very experienced man and on looking up the report I find the following: ''Messrs. Dowgray and Hunter explained that the conference having been called together by the United Federation of Labour, their object had been attained, and it was now for the transport workers to form some workable scheme for their mutual benefit. They would have pleasure in waiting on the conference later, with the hope that something definite would have been accomplished. Messrs. Dowgray, Hunter, and Semple then withdrew.’ . This is the great denunciation to my face of which Mr. Hunter speaks, it is no doubt true that when Mr. Hunter left the conference he had quite a iot to say about me and others who were present at that meeting, but certainly Mr. Hunter did not denounce anybody during the sitting. A" the report indicates, Mr. Hunter’s few words were more laudatory than otherwise. Mr. Hunter would have us believe now that he was a martyr to Labour’s cause in 191.8. It is true that he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for some part he took at a public meeting in Christchurch. May I ask him how it was that he only received three months for seconding a resolution, while two other men received six months each for supporting the resolution ? The workers of Christchurch know, full well the reason The joke of this case is that Mr. Hunter is now denouncing the organisation, namely, the transport workers, which took the nejost prominent in we®* kw-

ecssful in obtaining his release from prison. It becomes Mr. Hunter now to abuse tho men who demanded aw obtained his liberty when he was behind prison bars for a few days. His other remarks about his fighting qualities and his condemnation of.mino are so absurd and childish that they require no further comment from me, otiuy than to say that the workers of New Zealand who know mo best, recognise at least this fact, that prior to 1914, and since I have condemned war in no uncertain way and will continue to condemn any institution that brings so much suffering on humanity. I regret, sir, that your respect for literary taste, and possibly the libel law, prevented you from publishing the whole of Mr. Hunter’s allegations regarding my action in some strikes and disputes, which have taken place in New Zealand. However, I received Mr.’ Hunters letter as it was sent to the Press, and I desire now through your paper to issue the following challenge. He states in his letter that in Auckland, on account o£ the way I led the tramwaymen into the miro over the iockeys’ strike, and then left them in the' mud and repudiated the part I took in this dispute because I was ashamed of myself, the mention of my name creates a very, bad odour in that city. Here is a chance for Mr. Hunter. If p 6 oan prove that I . ever led the Auckland tramwaymen into the jockeys strike and then left them in the mud, before any tribunal appointed by organised Labour in New Zealand, I will resign ©very position I hold ftt present in connection with tho Labour movement; and if he fails to prove his assertion he is to withdraw his candidature for the position of workers representative on the Court of Arbitration. Now. let Mr. Hunter take his chance. He must either stand convicted as a public -prevaricator or accept this challenge. His other allegations regarding the sugar workers and the seamen s strike at Dunedin are on a par with those regarding the Auckland tramwaymen. I have had nothing whatever to do with the sugar workers’ strike, and the only connection I had with the overseas seamen’s strike at Dunedin was to pay the expenses incurred by the men who were looking after the interests of these workers at that port. Mr. Hunter would also have your readers believe that I am the controlling influence in the New Zealand Alliance of 'Labour. However, he knows as well as anybody else in New Zealand end better than most of your readers that the members of the National Council of tho Alliance of Labour will not bo controlled or dominated by any man living. Every one of theni has given lengthy servicics in the Labour movement; each of them has played a far more important part in helping the workers of this country than Mr. Hunter has or ever will. I have to point out to him. also that he has attended many meetings of tho council of the APiance of Labour nnd he has never bC4n able to bully or cajole one member of that council. Neither has any other, individual, in New Zealand whom I know the ability to browbeat or dominate any one of the men who are at present conducting tho business of that organisation. It is an absolute slur, and indeed an act amounting to downright insult, to assert in the public. Press that the members of the council of the Alliance of Labour can bo dominated by me or anyone else. We now come to the final paragraph of Mr. Hunter’s letter, and if the workers of New Zealand read that paragraph they will then be in a position to judge whether Mr. Hunter is a fit and proper person to represent them in any capacity whatever. In his self-styled open letter and also in his last journalistic effusion, he attacks the Alliance of Labour for not taking part in strikes ind for not having the courage create an industrial upheaval in this country, and in the same breath he tolls your leaders that the Alliance of Labour is opposed to tho Court of Arbitration and that he himself is opposed to the barbarous method of settling disputes by a strike. Now, what does Mr. Hunter want? He says the strike is a barbarous method of settling disputes, yet he condemns the Alliance of Labour for not taking part in strikes. This should surely indicate t° the workers of New Zealand that •spavined logic of that kind cannot. be a recommendation to the trade unionists of New Zealand when they are selecting a man to represent them on the Court of Arbitration.

He further states that I and a few of my associates are wild because we could not use him as a catspaw to smash the Court. I would again ask Mr. Hunter to be more specific in these charges, and state where in one instance the New Zealand Alliance of Labour has ever asked him to be a catspaw in any capacity or to do anything which would smash the Court of Arbitration of New Zealand. Hunter is making a very serious charge, and it is ? due to the workers of New Zealand to know what grounds, if any, he has for making it. In Ms letter he also attempts to lead the public to believe that if he is not returned as tho workers’ representative on the Court of Arbitration, then the arbitration system will be abolished. Does Mr. Hunter seriously believe that he is so important that unless he is elected to the Court as workers’ representative, the Court will go out of existence? Or, may I ask, is there some tacit understanding betwfeen him and the other members that unless Mr. Hunter is returned they will declare the Court "black” or declare a strike, or something equally drastic? Surely, reasoning of this kind indicates very clearly that Mr. Hunter, in his anxiety to retain his. present position, is suffering from a temporary alteration in the functions of his brain, which, were it not that the interests of tho workers are at stake, would demand the sincere sympathy of every' man and woman in New Zealand. In conclusion, sir, Mr. Hunter’s tirade of abuse of myself and my associates will demonstrate to the . workers of New Zealand thht he is a man unfitted to occupy the position of workers’, representative on the Court of Arbitration. Any man whose mental capacity allows him to descend to an attack of this kind for the sole reason that the organisation did not support his candidature cannot be entrusted with the economic welfare of thousands of working mon and women and their dependants in this country. His letter is further a libel on the intelligence of the Labour movement. He has attempted to lead the public of New Zealand to believe ' that every Labour conference is a log-rolling business, and that the ones he attended were real “donneybrooks" in which Mr. Hunter wielded the’ "shillelah” and challenged the people to tread on the tail of his coat. Nothing could be further from tho truth. There is a very high level of intelligence in the debate's of every Labour conference that writer has attended in New Zealand. As high nt least as that of any other conference which takes place in this countrv, nnd, as Mr. Hunter has now .on several occasions attempted to drag the credit of Labour political and industrial, in tho mire, wo have no doubt whatever that he, like a few others who have gone before him. will receive their full measure of justice, namely, oblivion as far as Labour is concerned.—l am, etc., JAS. ROBERTS, Secretary N.Z. Alliance of Labour. February 12, 1926.