THE RECALL

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 120, 21 May 1920, Page 7

THE RECALL

TO THB CDIrOX,

Sir,—ln your leader of the 19th lost. you •'invite corrections." Before attempting to correct, I might say- that the jeader contains,' to. my mind, that essential of Sherlock Holmes, viz., deductions. If it were possible for the gentleman who. wrote the leader to become a mainbei of the Wellington Central Branch, Labour Party, he would write of things as they are and not as he, or, to use the quotation, "we understand -it." You say the ".power oi recall" has never been authoritatively fixed by the New Zealand Labour Party. It is fixed and framed in such a way that no one can alter it except by *a general vote of all members o£ the party in New Zealand. It is fixed just as simply as your management fixes the right to discharge an employee. You lay greet emphasis on the words "annual conference," as if it were composed of two or three men who can act on their own authority; whereas every member of. tho conference is on appointed mouthpiece of every branch, and every member' of the different branches has an equal opportunity of voicing his or her opinions. If the delegate does not do all, or overdoes anything, that he is requested to. do., then he is responsible to the people who sent him, and here again the "recall" is put into operation. So your statement, that "the conference has supreme authority ia entirely wrong. Another question, of yours ia cs follows:—"Is it not a fact that under the New 'Zealand constitution 'the conference' can,, once a "year, modify or revise any plank in the platform on which Labour members were elected?" In answer, I must repeat that the conference can do nothing without the sanction of the people th&y represent. In conclusion, I must say that Mr. Frasei- has in public, and on more than on 9 occasion, repudiated tactics like those which occurred at 'Mr. Pira'ni's meetings, it' the reporter omitted to write- these words at the time, I can sappy the:*..— : I am, etc., - ' • J. STEWART. 20th May. [Our correspondent mis-states the position. We did not wi-ite thai the. New Zeafeiwi Labour Party had never authoritatively fixed "the 'Pov.-&- of Recall." " We wrote that, no far t:s we k'law, t-ho party had neve:: av.fchoriiE.tive.'.y fixed "tho important details" of its proposed Recall. Tho question Cc.nvet bo cnr.iidered or: its merits vrithout. there detail.'!, which the correspondent does not attempt to si'ppiy. Kic contention t.hn.t tho Labour CKfeira hr.-s ■ not supreme authority in the Lr.bor.r movement, because h. is; eiecied ;;-nd in i:o:iio itfcgi'te i)i?.nu;itcd' b'v tin; I.:sbor.r' branches', is afcvu I'd ; iie :r;igh; •..■: v^e-il tippy vhs Kiiprom? Ertthority o; Pni':!;:rvsni; bec...i'j-c PEriiar.io'.H- is electee' by tilt whole people. Authority vc.ts i;; }ac ■ Vmdy- U l'.;! passes resohit!<;iv.'. roi :.: the br^n-cl'ff. li:st fr.vA ;e:*i;ts. 'T;\o ~??.l point he lif.s to meet is that the Labour

conference, and also its electors, are sectional. * As we showed at the time, Jlr. Eraser's "repudiation" of mob-tax:-tics at meetings was belated and perfunctory, and did not exonerate either him or his associates.—Ed-fl"