LABOUR SPLIT

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 49, 27 February 1937, Page 14

LABOUR SPLIT

" DISPUTE IN THE ALLIANCE

MR. ROBERTS REPLIES TO MR. WALSH <

A reply to a statement made by Mr. F. P. Walsh, president of the New Zealand Seamen's Union, concerning the Alliance of Labour dispute, was made today by Mr. J. Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation.

"For some time past, Mr. Arthur Cook (secretary of the New Zealand Workers' Union) and Mr.. F. P. Walsh (president of the New Zealand Federated Seamen's Union) have been submitting statements to the 'Evening Post' regarding the dispute or split which occurred in the New Zealand Alliance of Labour in April last year," said Mr. Roberts. "Up to the present I have taken no part in this controversy, for from experience I realise that the airing of the differences within the Labour movement can only cause further disruption, and in addition it supplies our enemies with 'whips and scorpions' to chastise the Labour movement in the days to come. Neither do I desire to enter into the controversy now, and would not, do so but for the fact that Mr. Walsh has attacked my personal character and integrity, and to the best of his ability (which in this-direction I admit is considerable) misrepresented my activities in the Labour movement, and j thereby tried to condemn me in the' eyes of the public. "I consider, therefore, that 1 have a duty to the workers I represent and to myself to reply to the statements published :by ■ Mr. Walsh. "NO GROUNDS WHATEVER." "In a burst. of assumed self-assur-ance, Mr. Walsh'1 says' that. the matter published by Mr: Cook emanates from Mr. Roberts, and, as usual, he has no grounds whatever for making such a statement. He first assumes it,' then he says it, strikes the attitude of the gossip-prophet, thumps his chesf, and says to the world, 'Believe me, for I know.' Mr.' Cook has all the records dealing with the question under review, and, as far as I know, he is solely responsible for the reports published in 'The Post.' There was no logical reason why I should interfere. Mr. Cook has all the ability required to reply to Mr. Walsh. The plain truth is that it requires but little journalistic experience to give to the Press a plain Statement of fact, and to my knowledge this is what Mr. Cook has done up to the present time. "Mr. Walsh next draws his inky stiletto and has a random stab at someone he considers his enemy. He quotes from a report of a conference of the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation, and this is what he says:— " 'In case Mr. Cook still thinks that I was not justified in endeavouring to prevent the Alliance being used by Mr Roberts to further his own ends, I will quote hereunc1 Mr. Roberts's own statements on the question of the advisability of the Waterside Workers' Federation taking political action. "'The statement was made by Mr. Roberts in his capacity of national secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation and is published in the report of the conference of the Waterside Workers' Federation. .. .' "Any other man in New Zealand would have the fairness to state when and where the statement quoted was made. but. as Mr. Walsh is a firm believer in the saying that if you throw enough mud some of it will stick, he has studiously avoided giving any date. I cannot blame , 'The Evening Post' staff, for they were entitled to expect some accuracy from Mr. Walsh, particularly when he asserted that he was quoting from a report. 1919 CONFERENCE. ' "The statement he quotes is taken from the report of the waterside workers' annual conference held in Lyttelton in January, 1919—over eighteen years ago. Why did not Mr. Walsh tell the readers of 'The 'Post' when I made the statement? There was only one reason. He desired to convey the idea that I made that statement a year ago or even a week ago and that it was directed against the Labour Party and the present Government. Mr. Walsh realises that if he stateS the year in which it was made he would be the laughing-stock of the Labour movement. Probably he considered that the report was not now available, and that he alone had the sole remaining copy. However, if anyone will call at my office, he can read the report, and he will then be better able to judge the reliance that can be placed on any quotation coming from the president of the Seamen's Union. "It would not be so bad. however, if Mr. Walsh quoted me correctly. He takes the. beginning of my statement from page 42 of the report, then goes back to page 35. grabs another piece from that, adds it to the first and tells the public that it is one speech dealing with one subject. Anyone who has ever dabbled in journalism knows that it is most unfair to take a sentence away from" its context, but it is much more unfair to alter the actual construction and order of a speech. Mr. Walsh has. I believe, always held the opinion that the end justified the means, and no doubt he is thoroughly satisfied with his success at misrepresentation on this occasion. "Space will not permit me to requote the statement in .full, but the facts are that at -the waterside workers' conference in 1919 two remits were submitted,' one that ■ the conference discuss the' advisability, of the federation faking political action, and the other that a secret ballot be taken of all affiliated unions on the advisability of linking up with the United Labour Party. During the discussion on these two remits, which lasted for a day, reference was made by delegates to the then 'rats' in the Labour movement, particularly those who 'ratted' on the conscription issue in Australia and wrecked the Labour Party in that country. References in a similar vein were made to two or three New Zealand .politicians who then styled themselves Labour men and who have, all except one, been removed from their political positions, and the remaining one is the bitterest enemy of the Labour Party today. "In my reply to the discussion, I referred to these men as 'rats.' I know no other name for them now. They 'ratted' on the Labour movement in Australia and New Zealand, and I make no apology to Mr. Walsh or .anybody else for using the term. In my opinion, it was not strong enough. I made no reference whatever to any member of the present Labour Party. These men fought the conscription issue in New Zealand, and I was as proud to be associated with them as I am now. FUSION ISSUE. "But as Mr. Walsh does not know the history of the Labour movement in this country, may I. remind him that a section of the so-called Labour Party in 1918-19 attempted to fuse with the Liberal Party, and my reference to it in the report is quite correct and I can prove it. He doeis not know that there then' existed a Socialist Party and a Social Democrat Party, and that the stand taken by the waterside workers was that they would not join either party until the issue was cleared up. Mr. Walsh, of course, does not, know, the history of

Labour in New Zealand. Away back in 1919, he was probably a somnolent shepherd tending his father's flocks on the plains of Patutahi.

"Mr Walsh seemingly makes much of my reference to a revolutionary party. lam not ashamed of that. I would not give a sprat for any political party that aimed to continue the existing social system, with all its evils, and that is why I support the present Government. Its objective is Socialism, and even in its short term of office it has brought about many revolutionary changes in NiVv Zealand. It is pleasing, however, to note the change of heart in Mr. Walsh, for a few years after 1919 he, at least, assumed that he was a leader in the Communist Party in Wellington, and no one was more strong in condemnation of the Labour Party and its policy and political action generally than Mr. Walsh. From my conversations with Mr. Walsh of recent years, I realise that he dreads a revolutionary change. That he is a supporter of the capitalist system was demonstrated quite clearly when he voted against a report asking for unity in the Labour movement to overthrow the capitalist Government controlled by Messrs. Coates and Forbes.

"The 1919 report of the Waterside Workers' Conference was printed and submitted to the waterside workers of New Zealand and adopted. This is the clearest indication that I can give that the statements I made about so-called Labour men who 'ratted' in Australia and New Zealand eighteen years ago were approved by the Labour . and Socialist movement at that time. All the present Labour members of Parliament who took an active part in the trade union and political movement in those days condemned the 'rats' in as strong, or stronger, language than I did, and, as I said previously, I would do the same now. PRESIDENTIAL POSITION. ' "Mr. Walsh states that the reason why he voted against the political section of my report to the. Alliance of Labour in 1935 was that I was using the report to get elected to the position of president of the New Zealand Labour Party, and he would be acting contrary to the best interests of the Labour Party to acquiesce and permit me to use the Alliance of Labour to place myself in the key position in the Labour Party. Now this is really amusing. There was no need for Mr. Walsh to be fearful of such a thing in 1935 for the simple and sufficient reason that I did not stand for president of the Labpur Party in that year. I have occupied the position of vice-president of the Labour Party for the' last three years. It is just as much a key position as that of president, for after all Mr. Walsh should know that all presidents and vice-presidents, though they hold- that- position in a .Labour organisation, are not would-be dictators like himself. There are no key positions in the Labour Party. The president is subject to the rules and usages of democracy, and all that is required of him is honesty, integrity, and service to the party and-its principles, and during the years I have held positions on the central executive the only person I have ever heard speak of key positions is Mr. Walsh.

"I am very pleased, however, that Mr. Walsh has announced his reasons, for a number of people have told me that rumours to that effect were circulated in the party conference last year, and, while I had suspicions as to who was the author or authors of them, I have to thank Mr. Walsh now for his confession. RECORD OF SERVICE. "Although Mr. Walsh has excelled himself in his lengthy tirade, it is not my intention to weary readers replying to his accusations, but there is one paragraph which directly attacks 'my character and credit in the Labour movement, and to which I am forced in self-defence to give an effective reply. Mr. Walsh starts with his usual 'I ■respectfully submit,' and then asks, I

'. . . what guarantee would the membership of the Labour Party have that he would not desert the party to the opposition in a critical hour?' He makes this statement, he says, on the grounds of a speech. I made in reply in a debate at the Waterside. Workers' Conference in 1919. My guarantee of loyalty to the Labour Party is based on continuous membership of the Socialist and Labour Party for thirty-nine years. I have never belonged to*any other political party, nor would I ever join a party that did not have Socialism for its objective. I have not changed my adherence to a party or policy with the frequency and agility of Mr. Walsh. He boasts that he belonged to the American 1.W.W., which by the way I doubt. We know that he was a member of, the Communist Party- in New Zealand, and during his membership condemned the Labour Party in even more violent terms than he did at the 1935 annual meeting of the Alliance of Labour, when he voted against a proposal that Labour should unite to defeat the Coates-Forbes Government, but as soon as . Labour got into power he wriggled back and now assumes tho position of its champion.

"If Mr. Walsh: was such a champion of the Labour Party ia 1935, why is it that the seamen were not represented at the party conference in that year? Why is it that they were not affiliated to the Labour Party at that time?' Mr. Walsh knows that for some years the Seamen's Union was not affiliated to Labour Party, and he took no part whatever in the activities of the party, but as soon as Labour got into power he. rushed to cover and reaffiliated. In the Labour movement nobody takes any notice of Mr. Walsh doing this. He has chopped and changed so often that we expect it of him.

"As to my guarantees, the best I can give are the positions that I have held in the Labour Party since 1919, the year I am accused by Mr. Walsh of attacking the party. First let me quote an extract from a speech made in Wellington, in December, 1918, in support of Mr. Robert Semple's candidature when he was standing for the byelection in Wellington South. 'The workers today are faced with a simple issue as to whether they will support a Labour man who has fought in the industrial movement for years past and always stood loyal to the wage-workers and the principles of the Labour movement. During this year we have elected two other men to Parliament — Messrs. H. E. Holland and P. Fraser. They are fighting a lone and difficult battle. Mr. Semple's election will be a source of strength to them to carry on the fight on behalf of the. wage workers in New Zealand's Parliament. We will then have four real Labour members of Parliament who believe in the Socialist philosophy, who will stand by the principles of Labour on every issue.

" 'Some of you ask me the question, what about the "rats" in Australia. Unfortunately there have been "rats" in the Labou.r' movement in that coun-

try, and they wrecked the greatest political party south of the Line. We have had a few men who styled themselves Labour in New Zealand also who "ratted" on every principle of the movement, but we know Mr. Semple, and like Mr. Holland, Mr. Fraser, and Mr. McCombs, he has proved his worth to the Labour movement, and it should be our duty not only to vote for him but to work with might and main for the return of men to Parliament who can be relied upon to carry on the fight for Socialism and Labour.' "That speech was made in December, 1918. During the General Election campaign in 1919, I was asked to speak on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party, and did so at Wellington and particularly at Napier. In every election since 1920, I haye spoken in many districts throughout the Dominion on behalf of the Labour Party and at the special request of the Labour Party, locally and nationally. "In 1925 I was elected to the central executive of the Labour Party and retained that position for four years, but owing to pressure of other work I did not stand for re-election in 1929. I was again elected to the central executive in 1933, and since 1934 I have occupied the position of vice-president of the New Zealand Labour Party. In addition, I have represented the industrial movement on all the important national issues which haye been placed before the Court of Arbitration for the past sixteen years. I was selected by the political and industrial sections as leader of the Labour section of the National Industrial Conference convened by the then Government in 1928. I was elected as the first workers' delegate from New Zealand to attend the International Labour Conference at Geneva, and I.have been a speaker at every important deputation on behalf of Labour since 1920. The foregoing is a list of part of my services, and prior to that, since 1904, my services to the industrial and political Labour movement were always available. "What has been Mr. Walshls position during this period? Has he ever been elected to represent the Labour Party? Can he quote one occasion where he addressed a public meeting on behalf of the party? Can he show one occasion on which he has been called upon to represent the industrial Labour movement as a whole on any important issue whatever? The facts are that Mr. .Walsh never had the confidence of the Labour Party to be elected to any official position,,"and the reason- is demonstrated! more clearly than I can do so by his tirade against men who have given a life service to the Labour movement. ALLIANCE OF LABOUR REPORT. "As Mr. Cook has dealt with this question very fully, I do not desire to enter into that part of the controversy, and it has never been my policy to air in public the contents of Labour reports, but, as Mr. Walsh has denied that he voted against a proposal that Labour should unite to elect a Labour Government, I would like to quote a short extract from the report. Speaking of the Coates-Forbes Government, the report says:— " 'During the past twenty years, every law enacted has been opposed to the best interests'of the wage-workers and has been aimed to restrict our activities and prevent in every possible way the trade unions obtaining a higher standard of living for the workers. Mr. Walsh voted that «that paragraph be deleted from the report. Obviously he must'be of the opinion that the Tory Government for twenty years and the Forbes-Coates Government in particular did not reduce the standard of life of the people of New Zealand and restrict the liberties of the trade unions. Continuing the report says: 'This has been demonstrated over and over again by decisions of the Court of Arbitration, particularly when it decided at the request of the Government to reduce wages by General Order and took away many of the hard-won conditions^ of employment which have been fought for by the workers for years past/ ■ Mr. Walsh voted that this, too, should be deleted, and he could only do so for one reason, viz., that he thought the Forbes Government was right when it directed -the Court to ,reduce wages. •A later section reads: it is our duty, therefore, as a working class movement to overthrow the present (the Tory) Government and insist that men will go into Parliament who will act in the interests of the wage-workers, for after all the interests of the wageworkers must inevitably be to the welfare of the people and the welfare of the nation.' Mr. Walsh voted that that section of the report be deleted. He did not want the working-class movement to overthrow the Tory Government, and apparently he did not want a Government in power which would act in the interests of the wage-workers. It is fortunate for Mr. Walsh that space will hot permit me to quote more of the report, for.it is equally, if not more, illuminative of the action of Mr. Walsh and his'friends on-that occasion.

"Mr. Walsh states that the report of the break-away section of the 1936 annual meeting, of which he was leader, would have been printed but for. my dictation, and he says that he has a letter from the manager of the New Zealand Worker Company informing him that I had directed that the report should not be published: How like Mr. Walsh! He would not quote the letter because the manager of the Worker Company never gave him such information. I have a copy of his letter to Mr. Walsh before me, and it simply states that I was : of the opinion that the New Zealand Worker Company, which is owned by. the workers, should not be brought into the', trouble. Why did not Mr. Walsh; take it to another printing company, or,-if he did, why was it not published? If I had seen the report, I would, as chairman of directors, certainly have instructed that it be not published. I have some responsibility to protect the money of the members of the Labour movement which is invested in the Worker Company- • GENERAL LABOURERS' AFFILIATION.

"Mr. Walsh attempts to justify the action of the break-away section of the Alliance of Labour in allowing local unions to affiliate by insisting that the Wellington General Labourers' Union .was allowed to affiliate as a

local union some years ago. What were the conditions under which they affiliated? They were allowed to affiliate as a nucleus of a national organisation of the unemployed workers throughout the Dominion. Mr. Walsh moved that the Wellington General Labourers' Union be approached and asked to affiliate with the Alliance of Labour for the purpose of establishing an unemployed section of the General Labourers' Union in Wellington and that the organisation be extended throughout the Dominion. The Alliance of Labour gave financial assistance for organising the unemployed workers, and some very good work was done to help these men; branches were formed throughout the Dominion, and it became a national organisation for the time being. However, at the 1935 annual meeting Mr. F. G. Young and Mr. R. Brooks—both, members of the break-away section— moved a resolution to the effect that the former resolution authorising the Wellington General Labourers' Union, to affiliate direct with the National Council be rescinded, and that they be instructed to affiliate with the district councils. The general labourers were kicked out of the Alliance of Labour National Council because they were a local organisation, but in 1936 the policy was changed again by Mr. Walsh and his friends,-, and local and company-controlled unions were admitted in affiliation to their section of the Alliance of Labour. Surejy this is an effective reply to Mr. Welsh.

"Mr. Walsh accuses me of addressing the Canterbury Freezing Workers' Union. It is true that I addressed a meeting at .Canterbury of men who were employed in the fellmongery department of the freezing works. These men had not been called on strike, and I was assured, by the secretary that none of the free labourers was present. I went there mainly at the request of Mr. Kilpatrick and Mr. Walsh, and for the purpose of drafting proposals for a new agreement. I have the correspondence in the office dealing with thi r matter. I never addressed one meeting of free labourers, but v I have a distinct recollection of Mr. Walsh rushing off tim« after time to • organise these men. There was probably nothing; wrong about that, but when it was done; and no effort made to get the old'hands who went on strike back on the job, I resented it then and I resent it now. ELIGIBILITY FOR PRESIDENT. "Mr. Walsh asks: '. .: . What alteration has been made in the constitution of the Alliance of Labour since 1930 that made the nomination of Mr. Bromley for the position of president out of order and my election as vice-president of 'he Alliance of Labour in 1935 unconstitutional?' Mr. Walsh must have worked himself into a fine fit of frenzy when he wrote that. It has no meaning, but we will assist him by making his statement a little, more intelligible. What he meant to say probably was what alteration had been made in the constitution that made Mr. Bromley's' nomination in order in 1930 and his election as vicepresident unconstitutional in .1935. There was a serious alteration in the constitution during that period. In 1930 the Trades and Labour Councils' Federation, which Mr. Bromley represented, was a department of the Alliance of Labour, known as the miscellaneous department. The miscellaneous department was entitled to and had representation on the national council, and their delegate was quite in order in standing for" any official position. Mr. Walsh should know all about the change. "NOSE POKING." "In reply to Mr. Cook, Mr. Walsh, states that neither Mr. Cook nor himself is entitled to poke their nose 3 into the business of the watersida workers. Why this shuffling? Mr. Walsh has already poked his nose into the waterside workers' business. He quoted from their report that was marked 'Confidential for members* use only.' Mr. Walsh- in the. rush, and fury of his attack orv^ myself, seems to have forgotten "that he has poked his. nose where it is not wanted, and this is ;not tha only time that he has interfered with, the waterside" workers' business; indeed, it seems to be part of his daily; routine nowadays. ■ "In this reply, I have been compelled in my own defence to introduca the name of the New Zealand Labour Party and the names of some industrial organisations, but it was unavoidable. I know the reason for the tirade of Mr. Walsh. He' realises that it can serve no useful purpose to the Labour movement, and that it can only disrupt it, and may I ask him why thi3 burst of publicity about the so-called sins of the Labour men? Mr. Walsh knows his business, but he'will not get me to help him in the job. His unfounded accusations were calculated to do me as much harm as possible. There is, of course, a remedy, but it is not my line to take; that remedy.Mr. Walsh knows it and relies on it for his safety. . ... - ' "I have stated my case fully and' conclusively, and I challenge M:-. Walsh to refute one iota of what I have said. • My respect and adherence to the Labour movement compels me also to say that I shall refuse to reply to him in any newspaper in future, but I shall be pleased to meet and debate with him as.to my own and his activities in the Labour movement at any port in New Zealand at a joint meeting of waterside workers and M»> men—the trade unionists we represent. This is the method by which . dl*feJ* ences of opinion should be adjustea, and the judges will be the people w«o are directly interested." (