AN INDEPENDENT LABOR PARTY.

Evening Star, Issue 12173, 18 April 1904, Page 7

AN INDEPENDENT LABOR PARTY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your leading article in Saturday's I isMie on the decision of the Trades Councils' Conference to form an Independent Labor party expresses surprise. Whether the surprise is occasioned by the Conference carrying the proposal by such a large majority or whether the proposal was sprung on an unsuspecting Conference is not clear. I wish to say that the proposal was brought before the Otago Trades and labor Council on January 29, very fully discussed, reported in the official organ of the Council, and remitted to the other centres. It has been hinted that the Wellington Council's delegates exceeded their powers by voting for the proposal. Suffice it to say that when the question was under consideration in the Wellington Council, a motion was moved that the delegates be instructed to vote against the proposal. This was lost by an overwhelming majority. I do not deem it necessary to touch en that part of your leader which so strongly advocates the virtues of the Government; but the statement that without the Government the Labor party would have " accomplished absolutely nothing in the shape of practical legislation " is merely assumption. Had New Zealand not possessed an extraordinary man in Mr Seddon, the probability is that we should have had in the past twelve years several changes of Government, and progressive legislation would have been gained by one party outbidding the other in their efforts to capture popular support. Mr Seddon is a strong man, a man who has done much for the workers, and to whom they are not ungrateful. You seem to take it for granted that the mission of an Independent Labor party would be to turn the. Seddon Government out of office immediately, and as a pastime would continue that line of action on successive Governments. I have insisted, since bringing this proposal forward, that it is not an anti-Government or anti-Seddon proposal; but the opinion of the Labor party is that no statesman or Government can live on their past, and " Progress" is the watchword. If the Seddon Government are the best possible progressive Government, there need be no doubt who the Labor party will support.

I am suqmsed to hear that Mr Redmond and Mr Watson, with the Irish Nationalist* in the House of Commons and the Australian Federal Labor party, "are powerless to benefit either themselves or their party." Now, there can be no doubt as to whether the Irish party have wrung very material concessions from a hostile Government. And Mr Watson ! Why, we have heard and read repeatedly in the newspapers, not excepting the ' Evening Star,' that the hand of Watson directed the parliamentary machine in the last Parliament. Your Australian correspondent never tires in telling us that the Commonwealth is going to the devil because the Labor party "run the country." Where is the mistake? The Australian Labor party have or have not influence. A "White Australia" is one monument to their sagacity. To be accused of an attempt to "capture the parliamentary machine" among several other crimes occasions no surprise. The party have been accused of the same offences before. "That sturdy common sense" you mention has not always been credited to them. But, sir, I think credit might be given for disinterestedness and a desire to do the best for the people of this colony to men who toil for the benefit of their fellows.

With reference to the great measures placed on the Statute Book, you are well aware that the Trades Councils of this colony have done more than any other single organisation to bring about these blessings, which, when first advocated, met with ridicule and snetrs. And it is the same to-day when discussing and advocating reforms. Many remember the reception the proposal of the Workers' Political Committee to make education free from primary schools to university received when brought forward years ago. How ridiculous it was! It doea not appear nonsensical to-day. And so on. On all these matters an Independent Labor party would have been found consistently supporting tho Government, but with such a part}' many of the reforms mentioned by you would have been made law much earlier than without it With regard to the ingratitude of demo-

cracies to their leaders, I agree with you that there have been instances of such ingratitude. But I say unhesitatingly that there aire also" rriahy .glaring seises in which leaders have pfdved ungrateful and fake to. democracy. And.Where i* the point cf asking Has Mr. Millar, or Mr Arnold, or Mr Sidey, or Mr E. G. Allen been false to bis trust! Is there no room in such a party for these men? And Mr Sidey holds no trust from organised labor, therefore he lias nothing to betray from tb.it standpoint; It is touch mote likely that with ah Independent Labor p&rty in the House, the members of that party would walk straighter in the path of political rectitude than with slipshod organisation. And Duhedjn las gehgrally shown a good eiample to other parts of the colony in sending pledged Labor men to the House. May she, continue to do so. Had other centres acted' similarly perhaps there would be ho need for ah Independent Labor party. Labor has a mission and a message. A Labor party is absolutely Essential to proclaim that message.

You ask the question: "Do the party as a party approve of this surprise resolution?" The Canterbury delegates voted against it, as vou say, but the chairman of the Conference, Mr W. Newton (a Canterbury delegate) declared that he wished it to be distinctly understood that he was not registering his personal opinion in voting against it, as he favored the proposal. That was reported in thfe Press. A second Canterbury delegate was in the same position ( which leaves one Uncompromising opponent. The Otago Council are unanimous on the proposition, and the voting at the Conference was 16 for and 3 against, showing conclusively that a change is demanded.

I would have liked" to draw attention to the Labor movement in other countries, but lo not wish to trespass upon your ppace further. To take Queensland as one example, For years this State was in the '■Kinds of a corrupt and unscrupulous gang. The Independent Labor party gained public favor by their unselfish ahd "patriotic efforts to bring in a new regime, and with the a'd of a progressive party, to-day hold the reins of power, and Queensland is governed better than ever before. And in the natural ourse of events Mr Airey, Leader of the Labor party, takes the portfolio of Minister of Mines, rendered vacant by the death of that earnest Labor leader, Mr Browne. lii concluding your article, you draw on your imagination to suppose a case of throwing over King Log for King Stork, end ittempfc to scare the workers. I think the workers—and I use the term in its broadest ■:-erise—can be reiied on to rally round the party of progress, the party who put their programme in black and white before the people, and who have proved themselves a clean am. eta, J. T. Paul. April 18. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The leading article in Saturday's issue of the 'Star' undoubtedly voices the sentiments of a good number—lf riot the majority—of the trades unionists in Dun?<lin. That the delegates at the Christchurch Conference Were acting without instructions from the various unions on such a momentous question is beyond doubt. That they possessed too much of the wisdom of the serpent to even ask the unions to give them authority to speak in the manner in which they have spoken is also beyond doubt. What,'in the name of common sense, do they expect to achieve when they get into Parliament? Let these embryo politicians seriously ask themselves: Have we the brains, the intellectuality, and the sturdy honesty of purpose that has distinguished the past and present Labor representatives from their fellows, and in the Councils of the Stute won the respect of even their bitterest opponents? The statement that the Labor Conference " went on their knees to ask the Government to adopt their resolutions, and still no notice wa.« taken," is an especially interesting oratorical flight. When and where did the sturdy representatives of labor adopt this grovelling method 6F obtaining concessions ?

I will, with your permission, take the most important" subject, from the labor standpoint, that came up for discussion during the last session—the question of giving preference to unionists. No doubt you will agree with me when I say that in asking for compulsory preference to unionists wo asked for a lot, but at the same time we had good and logical arguments to back up this demand. The employers in some cases, when they had to give increased wages as the result of an appeal to the Arbitration Court by the employees, felt very sore, end soon found some excuse for supplanting by non-unionists the men who were active in unionise circles. The very men who obtained the award and who paid the expenses of getting the award out of their own pockets were to be seen walking the streets, while the non-unionists, who contributed nothing, and who w;re in the majority of cases inferior tradesmen, occupied their benches. This was tho rtato of affairs that all unionists demanded should be abolished, and just as we were expecting that this demand would bs acceded to, what do we find? The Labor Conference abandoning the proposal, and substituting that of compulsory unionism, whereby all the wastrels and wasters in the various trades were to be dragged in under the banner of lib.rty, Equality, and Fraternity. This resolution, by the way, was another surprise resolution. The unions had no idea that at the critical moment the policy of preference to unionists was to be discarded for what was probably the most harebrained proposal ever made at a labor conference.

The Independent Labor party are taking their title from the Independent Labor party in England, so it wonld be safe to assert that their constitution would be something similar. The necessity of the Independent Labor party in the Old Country is undoubted. Th?y have big work before them, and many, many years will elapse ere they get one-tenth of" the labor legislation that our present Liberal Government have given us. The Irish Nationalists in the House of Commons have failed to get what they were sent there for. For although those gentlemen may occasionally poke their shillelaghs into the political machine and stop the wheels from going round, what have they achieved? Practically rothing. Home Rule is as far off to-day as it ever was. Take the case of the Labor party in Australia. What are thev struggling for at the present moment? "Why is the fate of the first Federal Ministry in the history of Australia trembling, aye, even at this very moment, in the balance? It is over the question of including Civil servants in the Federal Arbitration Bill. Now, sir,, what occurred iu New Zealand some few years ago, when some of the railway men wanted recourse to the Arbitration Court? When the request came before Sir Joseph Ward, did he roar and stamp as Mr Thomas Bent, the erstwhile market gardener who is at present ruling over the destinies of Victoria, did on a similar occasion? Did he scornfully reject the proposal? No; what Sir Joseph said was that he would take a vote amon* the men and let the majority decide. li°they decided to come under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court they could do so. Yet, in spite of this, I have no doubt but that the Independent Labor party of New Zealand have already allotted the portfolio of Minister of Railways. Are the Labor leaders of New Zealand aware that the best friends of united labor in Australia are advising the Labor party in the Commonwealth to drop their title and broaden their constitution, to join forces with the advanced Liberals under the title of a National party, and force the Tories into opposite benches. The "rag and bobtail'' of the liberals could go with the Tories* but stay—the hint thrown out from unexpected quarters in Maoriland would, no doubt, be seized on with avidity by these weak-kneed gentlemen, who could form an Independent Political Dead-beat party, and have a tiy to secure the balance of power for themselves.

That the Labor party of Australia will shortly broaden their constitution is undoubted. Where in that Labor party are men who can do what Sir George Turner and Mr Charles Kingston have done for the workers? There are plenty of well-meaning and straight-going men who would sertre their party, but where is their ability' that is the question. Political giants like Kingston and Turner will not sacrifice their intelligence to the bidding of the Labor party; but the two parties—Advanced Liberal and the Labor partv—could practically always agree, provided that the fatuous idea of manufacturing wealth with 'a,

bottle of ink, some paper, and a printing machine," and similar wild-cat schemes were relegated to the limbo of oblivion. So, sir, ytiii will see by this that the tendency in Australia is td reach the Maoriland standard, frhere the Liberal and Labor members often sit do\vn together oh the one platform and mutually assist each other's objects. Another question. I thought that the Labor party were not a political organisation. There seems to be a mistake someWhere is* that intelligent body Ihe " Workers' Political Committee".? What are they doing V That collection of estimable gentlemen are, in these stirring times, strangely silent If they do not soon bestir themselves and fight this Independent Labor party bogey they will be able to exclaim with Othello that their occupation is gone. You ask if the statement " that the labof unions of Otago are to a man in favor of an Independent Labor party" is correct. 11l answer, sir, without resorting to language too emphatic, I will sav that that statement is a deliberate falsehood. How do the Otago representatives know that such is the case? Did they ever take any steps to have a vote taken by each union ? Most decidedly No. Their statement is founded on what they ascertained in informal discussions with a select few, and is entirely erroneous. The Right Hoii. the Premier stated some two or three years ago that some members of Parliament were like the fly in the amber—he " wondered how they got there." If the Independent Labor jiarty succeed in their efforts, I think Mr Seddon will have more cause to wonder. Perhaps Mr Arnold Will touch on this subject to-morrow evening.—l am, ete.j Liberty. April IS.