THE CASCADE TROUBLE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 55, 13 September 1928, Page 17

THE CASCADE TROUBLE

REPLY TO MR. SEMPLE Tho Welfare League writes:—-As Mr. B. Semplc lias supplied a lengthy reply to <i statement of the Prime Minister which was not addressed to him wo seek permission to examine this reply. In the first place the Prime Minister's statement, though heatedly debated, was not "an outburst against the West Coast miners and the New Zealand Labour Party." It acknowledged that a friendly settlement had been arrived at: that the co-operative party were to continue to operate. The hope was expressed that no further efforts would be made to intimidate and a promise given that if any such steps were taken the Government would afford protection to those workers seeking to exercise their liberties. Now, did anything occur approaching intimidation. Mr, Semple may contend it was only peaceful persuasion. The fact stands, however, that this persuasion took a rather peculiar form. In order to convince the two or three men of the "Tribute Party," as they were named, a monster demonstration was organised at Denniston, with the Silver Band and an attendance of 500. The members of the Tribute party were lectured to and some inflammatory references were made. Mr. T. Muir, secretary Denniston Miners' Union, in the course of his "speech, said ho had arranged a secret code and a message had come to him, "Four tons of meat coming up the hill." His reply was, "We would boil it, but it would be rotten to eat." As this demonstration was closing it was put to the chairman that members of the Tribute Party should be heard. One of the party, Mr. T. Humphries, then addressed the meeting. What is most significant in the report of this meeting in the "Grey Rover Argus," 11th August, is that "The chairman advised the Tribute Party to return to Westport 'forthwith, as he was apprehensive as to what might happen should they decide to continue ou to their destination." So there was pressure amounting to intimidation when these men could not freely proceed to their destination. This small party of tribute or co-op-erative workers took a contract from the Cascade Mining Company to produce under the water system 30,000 tons of coal at 9s per ton delivered at the bottom bins, company to maintain the flume. In a letter to the secretary, Denniston Miners' Union, before the demonstration took place, the principals of the party, Messrs. Moynihau and Humphries, wrote: "You asked under what conditions wo intended to work the system. We are prepared to work under the co-operative system, or else to work under an agreement which wo are prepared to make with your union." In his speech at the big demonstration, recounting what had gone before, he said, "We spent three months in development work and spent considerable money in so doing." "Further," he added, "we offered to take in with us any of the miners working for the Cascade Company, and who were members of the Miners' Union, with the condition that they found an equal proportion of the cost met by us up to the time of their coming in." That tells a differont story from Mr. Semple's statement that "the contract party -was confined to two or three men, who intended to omploy labour." We are amused at the suggestion of something wrong in employing labour. Has not Mr. Semple done so himself? His plea that the group bargaining of the contract would destroy the right of collective bargaining under the union agreement is absurd. Mr. Humphries said they jwid over award - rites for such labour as they employed.4-: Besides,"■ under 'the" settlement which has .taken place, the contract still stands, and that is based upon group bargaining. Mr. Semple says, "It was' only since the trouble started that Moynihan decided to make the party a purely co-operative party." The evidence is that they tried to bring others in with them on fair terms before ever the Alliance of Labour and the Labour Party were called in. The ' Prime ■ Minister questioned if there was much difference between the original contract and the new agreement Mr. Semple says "there is a fundamental difference." Ho does not, however, prove this. To do so he should say whether there has been a new contract made with the company, quote the terms of both contracts and show wherein they differ. All we learn so far is that there are seven men in the party instead of two or three previously. The other provisions were, wo believe, always acceptable to the party, and the only real difference seems to be that the contract shall be submitted to the Miners' Union in the same way as an industrial agreement. Unless there has been an extension of the existing contract with the company we cannot see that there is much difference after all. It is highly amusing to note how eloquent Mr. Semple becomes in imputing to Mr. Coates the motive of raising this question for party puzposes. The public is asked to believe that the Labour Party would not do such a thing. AVhy, it may be asked, seeiug the matter was purely industrial, was it not left to the industrial organisation alone? Clearly the design was to make party capital out of the situation. Then this harangue of Mr. Semple is n waving of the party flag from beginning to end. To the onlooker the whole matter has much of the appearance of a party wrangle throughout, with Mr. Semple on the band waggon beating the big drum. Why Mr. Semple drags the Communists into this discussion, as they were never mentioned in the House or on the West Coast, is hard to understand. What had they to do with the Cascade dispute? Did they demand a different settlement from what has been effected" So far as we can learn the members of Mr. Semple's party and the Communists on the "Coast' were good comrades, hand in hand with each other in lighting the Tribute system. If it is not to show how virtuous in comparison his party is we fail to sco any point in tha attack. Ho charges the Government and the Communists with desiring to foment industrial strife. He should remember, if his memory is not failing, that he has had a similar charge laid against him more than once. His statement that the Communists are out to injure the Labour Party surely wants qualifying. There are Communists in the party, and on the West Coast they are supporting Mr. H. E. Holland and Mr. J. O'Brien. He tells us the Communists uphold "dictatorship of the proletariat." True, but Mr. Semple upholds "control of all industries by the workers who operate them," which is the same principle. We are more opposed to Communism than Mr. Semple, as we do not toy with its doctrine. When wo find the Communists being used as a stalking horse in order to gain political sympathy it is right to point out the sham of this proceeding. They hftd nothing specially to do with the Cascade dispute.