Evening Post. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1921. CONSTITUTIONALISM AND LOYALTY

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 86, 8 October 1921, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1921. CONSTITUTIONALISM AND LOYALTY

As the grievous injury which Mr. Holland alleges to have been inflicted upon the Labour Party by the High Commissioner is admittedly not a matter of express words but of inference, it is light that the public should be reminded vof what the High Commissioner actually said. It is only with the full text before him that a man can form a fair judgment of the implications of an article which appeared nearly six months ago, and decide how much-of the alleged injury is due to the sensitive conscience, the active imagination, or the sophistical ingenuity of Mr. Holland, and how1 much to the malice or the unconscious bias of a roan who has taken party politics with him into the High Commissioner's office in London. A careful perusal of Sir James Allen's article in the centenary number of the Manchester Guardian shows that the only passages which have any bearing upon Mr. Holland's complaint are the following:

In that year (1914) there were two political parties in New Zealand and a few Labour members. ... The outbreak of war found both parties and some of the Labour members anxious that New Zealand should take its full share in the inevitable struggle. . . . The result of the , election [in 1919] was to return Mr. Massey with a large majority. Sir Joseph Ward lost his seat, and the Labour representatives increased their numbers from eight to eleven. It is safe to say that ttjere are practically no differences in principle between the two partieSj and that some members o{ both would regret the extinction of the Liberals and their replacement by an Opposition consisting of Labour 'members dominated by extremists. 'There is no complete cohesion amongst Labour members, for, at least three of them must be considered as favouring constitutional methods for securing the, betterment of those they represent. The principles embodied in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act were for a time accepted, but when the Courts found it impossible to grant further increases in wages a considerable section of the Labour community abandoned constitutional methods and adopted the policy of "direct action" and "go slow. '

Except for the temporary grievance which in the cabled summary the statement that "there are practically no differences of principle between the two parties " gave the Liberals by seeming to liken them to the Labour Party, we cannot see that the article provides anybody with a reasonable ground for complaint. The, first of Sir James Allen's references to the Labour Party does not appear to have done it any wrong, in Mr. , Holland's opinion, even "by inference." The outbreak of war is said to have found," some of the Labour members loyal and anxious that New Zealand should take its full share in the inevitable struggle." By inference, others of the.Labour members were neither loyal nor anxious to see New Zealand throw in its full weight against the Kaiser. But neither the loyalty alleged nor the disloyalty implied, neither the patriotism attributed to some members of the Labour Party nor the poltroonery which may be inferred against the others, draws a protest from Mr. Holland, and he is wise. This part of the High Coriimisjsipaer's. statement is at least as \

damning as that which excites the wrath of Mr. Holland, but he Has nothing to say about it. Loyalty and strenuous war-service are not virtues which Mr. Holland ventures to claim for all the Labour' members. Even his microscopic care can find nothing wrong with this part of the High Commissioner's article.

The -constitutionalism of the Labour Party evidently seems to Mr. Holland a stronger ground on which to fight the High Commissioner than its loyalty as measured by the attitude of many of its leaders during the war. Even here, as we have said, his grievance is one of inference only. At least three of the members must be considered '"as favouring constitutional methods for securing the betterment of thbse they represent." Mr. Holland is certainly justified in inferring that other Labour members are represented as not regarding such methods with the same favour, but to infer, as he ■ does, that those members are charged by implication with a total repudiation of constitutional procedure is a strained and utterly impossible construction. Very clear language would be needed to show that so sweeping and absurd a charge had been made by any sensible man. Here the inference which Mr. Holland asks us to draw is plainly rebutted by the context.

The principles of the Arbitration Act were accepted for a time, says Sir James Allen, but when the Court ceased to increase wages "a considerable section of the ijabour community abandoned constitutional methods and adopted the policy of ' direct action ' and ' goslow.'" The nature and .scope of the anti-constitutionalism alleged by implication againsf the militant section of the Labour Party are plainly revealed by this sentence. They have . substituted " direct action" and " go-slow" for the old-fashioned appeaf to reason and the law. What do Mr. Holland and his colleagues think about the change? Have they condemned it? Have they tried to stop it 1 Are they prepared to repudiate it now 1 Mr. Holland makes no such suggestion, but he naively replies that "if they [the Labour Party] did not approve constitutional methods the Labour ijaeinbers would not be in the House." This is delightfully childlike and bland, but as serious argument should be addressed rather to children than to grown men. There is such a thing ■as making the best of both worlds. A burglar does not clear his character by proving that he pays cash for his groceries, and that his cheques are never dishonoured. A directactionist does not become a constitutional agitator because he sends to Parliament the man who led him astray. Mr. Holland's sophistry does Sir James Allen no harm,..and entirely fails to convict him of political partisanship, historical inaccuracy, or official impropriety.