"DRIVEN OFF THE LAND"

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 129, 2 June 1928, Page 26

"DRIVEN OFF THE LAND"

SANCTITY OF AGREEMENTS MX. JAMES .REPLIES TO ME. . SEMPLE (To the Editor.) Sir, —!Mr. Semple accuses me of launching "a mass of lubrications with the -most unblushing audacity" .because, presumably, 1 made v mistake in the date of JUr. Hiekey's article which upi>earcd in the "jVlaorilaiid Worker as quoted by me in my former commuuicatiou to you. It is noticeable, however, that he does not deny that the statement was made and did appear iv that journal. He can hardJy do so because, in his "lied Fed Memoirs,"' printed and. published by the "Worker" office, Mr. Hiekey ■ (described on the title page as lirst secretary of the .New Zealand Miners' federation, and formerly general secretary of the Wellington federation of Labour), states definitely on page 50 that he "urged that the federation should stand prepared to toss every agreement to hell," and at the time of writing you, 1 had the printed extract, as quoted by myself, before me. Mr. Hiekey's comment on the business was "that, the phrase 'to hell with agreements' was coined by the Wellington "Evening Post' out of his utterance. 1 did not say, as Mr: Semple accuses mo of doing, that the article appealed during any prolonged strike, and had he been more careful in reading my letter he would see that, apart from the statement that the "Maorilandl Worker"-on' the 7th February, 1913, was "aindeii .the editorial control of Air. H. E., Holland,", that my reference to the present Leader of the Opposition had to do with the Unity Congress, at which I pointed out that "The United Federation of Labour and the Social Democratic Party 'daihe 'into being." That was in 1913, and at that time Mr. H. E. Holland, M.I 5., was certainly in New Zealand, ,as .he .took .part in the proceedings of that, .copgress, the official report of which, covering some 104 pages and printed at the "Worker"'office, is still in 'my possession. I- have always understood, that, at that time, Mr. Holland, who (according -to '"Who's Who in New Zealand") came to ■ this ■ country in 1912, was in editorial control .of . . the "Maoriland Worker" in 1913, but as the. only files of the "Worker" to' which I have been able to refer merely date back to 1919, I have not had an opportunity of verifying the facts. This much is, however, certain, that at the Unity Congress following the decision to call the new organisation "The United Federation of Labour," Mr. moved the adoption of the preamble affirming that The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. . . . Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organise as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system." It is true that was not carried, but, as approved by the Congress and embodied in the constitution of the United Federation of Labour, these sentiments (those of the 1.W.W.) were but thinly veiled in the following form:— To organise systematically and scientifically upon an industrial union basis, in order to assist the overthrow of the capitalistic system, and thus bring about a co-operative commonwealth based upon industrial democracy. That "straight-out Socialistic objective" (described as such by the "Maoriland Worker") was carried by about 350 to 6, and the "Worker," commenting upon the proceedings, declared that "present indications indicate that, before the end of the week, the foundations will have been laid of two great revolutionary armies of the working class—one to operate class-con-sciously in the industrial field, the other to operate class-consciously in'the" political field." In his "Red Fed Memoirs" Mr. Hiekey, writing of the adoption of the preamble, says (page 40): "We adopted with certain alterations the I.W.W. preamble)." I fancy Mr. Semple was just as revolutionary in his ideas in those days as Mr. Holland, and the gentleman I termed his •'friend arid associate of 1013," Mr. Hiekey. Indeed, they were sometimes spoken of us the "Siamese twine," because of their intimate associations. It is not, recorded that Mr. Semple at any time raised his protest against the adoption of the revolutionary policy of the United Federation of Labour and the Social Democratic Party. So far as Mr. Semple's use of figures is concerned, in proof of his assertion that, in five years, under the Reform Government, 13,581 persons have been "driven olf the land," I think I have offered a very reasonable explanation of the reason why fewer persons were employed on farms in 1927 than in 1923. I have shown that, over the same period, the number of occupied holdings has substantially .increased, and that production has gone up all round, which certainly does not look as if the country has suffered at all, while machinery has largely displaced labour on dairy farms and in the agricultural and pastoral industries. 1922-23, the year Mr. Semple has chosen for his contrast with tho 1926-27 figures was a boom year, followed by slumping conditions which helped to reduce employment and to force the farmer to substitute (as he did in so many cases) machinery and power plants for the labour which ho had never found too satisfactory. . I do not for a moment dispute that tho official returns show that 13,581 fewer persons were employed on farms in 1926-27 than in 1922-23, but if the Government is to be blamed for that, it is surely only right that it should be credited with the fact that, between 1917-18 and; 1922-23, it increased the number of people employed on the land by 26,825, and that over the ten-year period, 1917-18 to 192C--27, the gain in the number of people employed on the land is represented by 13,244. Hero are tho figures:— Year. Males. Females. Total. 1926-27 102,335 30,464 132,799 1017-18 89,378 30,177 119,555 Increase .. 12,957 287 13,244 I leave it at that, with the remark that in his anxiety to damage the Government Mr. Semple has neglected to take into account the possibility of his arguments rebounding upon himself. — I am, etc., ERNEST A. JAMES. Ist June.