CORRESPONDENCE THE POST AND THE REDS TO THE EDITOR.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 72, 26 March 1914, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE THE POST AND THE REDS TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — Let me bring you back to your original contention, via, that the strike could have been settled upon '"ea^y terms" at the very commencement but for the obstinancy of the men. 1 demanded facts in support of this, and you gave in reply three different "easy" ways in which a settlement could have been arrived at. These offers, according to you, were ;—; — (1) A new agreement with the local watersiders, with a penalty of £1000 for any breaches as defined by Clause 28. (2) A Dominion agreement covering the waterfronts of New Zealand. (3) The submitting of ' points in dispute to the arbitrament of Sir Joshua Williams. You now drop No. 2 with the same alacrity you would a stinging nettle, and harp on Nos. 1 and 3 with much talk of "Mr. Hickey's bluff." I'm calling your bluff! I have demonstrated that one of your contentions was a piece of specious bluffing! Remember that the point is that an "easy" way out of the strike was available! How easy was No. 1? The Wellington watersiders were a party along with moat of the other waterside workers to an agreement. A stopwork meeting was held to discuss certain grievances. Similar meetings had been held in at least Auckland and Lyttelton without any bother, and because the local men did what others had been doing the employers arbitrarily demanded that the Wellington men should break away and break faith with their mates in other ports, subordinate the welfare of comrades elsewhere at the employers' dictum, and, further, that they enter into bonds for £1000. Something without parallel ' in the history of New Zealand, if not Australasia. If The Post- considers that an "easy" step to take — well, it doesn't know what it is talking about. As well declare Judas found an "easy"' way of making money. Imagine The Post as a party to a national agreement covering practically every newspaper in the Dominion, deserting its fellows, ' repudiating the national agreement, entering into another agreement without the knowledge or consent of its confreres, and, added to that, establishing a precedent whereby ii. bound itself to a penalty of £1000, something hitherto unknown. The Post might excuse its conduct on the ground of "easiness." but its contemporaries would feel like calling, and probably would call: "Traitor! Traitor!" No; No. 1 is not "easy." It was a most dangerous and insidious move, as those against whom it was directed could detect, even if The Post failed to do so. Regarding No. 3, let me again repeat, The Post's_ assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, that this suggestion was not seriously, considered by either party, and that the facts are substantially as stated by me in my last letter. This reply has been delayed owing to my absence from the city, but though delayed, I flatter myself I have demonstrated in this, as in previous letters, that your party bias renders it impossible for you to fairly and impartially state the case for the workers. On the contrary, everything the commercial monopolists do is right and proper, and any questioning of their high-handedness by the workers a venial sin. — I am, etc. P, H. HICKEY. 23rd March, 1914. [Those who have read Mr. Hickey'a two previous letters and the answers may be surprised at his new outbreak of assertions. He seems to be chronically addicted to incorrectness or confliotion of statements. Even when he purports to have before him The Post's comments on his_ inventive faculty aud the proof that he erred, he mixes up the plain black-and-white of the print in lemarkable manner. He repeatedly alleges that The Post quotetl "a penalty of £1000" in regard to a proposal for agreement to bind the " local vvafc-r-siders." If Mr. Hickey looks at The Post's statement a little more careiully he will see £500 We do not press the mis-statement as important, but it is a typical slip by the Federation's impetuous secretary Mr Hickey .still clings to his allegation that arbitrament by Sir Joshua Williams was " not seriously considered." Did the strikers treat the proposal as a joke before they resolved to reject it? Is it the usual practice of Eed Federals to reject veiy important proposals before seriously considering them ? Mr. Hickey may *" flatter himself" to his heart's content in the contemplation of his third iihto* of his old habit of inaccuracy. It is not, • important to analyse the correspondent's rambling statements, but it might be interesting to know the reasons for his persistence with the biuff scheme, because he can only discredit further the Red Federation by that method. If he genuinely believes his own peculiar assertions, then an explanation of the habitual incorrectness may be defective memory. For example, on 30th October Mr. Hickey said :-— " The dispute was yesterday (a week after the strike began) officially handed over to the Federation." The evidence of facts in Wellington warranted a belief that the strikers' case had been directed by the Red Federation's leaders for some days before 30th • October. On 26th November Mr. Hickey officially stated :—": — " The employers' leview then states that * having resolved to strike, the Wellington Waterside Workeis" Union sank its identity, handing over the whoje of the strike negotiations to the executive of. the Federation of Latiour.' This statement is false. The dispute was not handed over to the United Federation till about two weeks after the strike eventuated."]