LABOR POLITICS.

Evening Star, Issue 12867, 17 July 1906, Page 7

LABOR POLITICS.

ro THE EDITOR. Sir,r—Were it not for the supreme im-1' portance of the questions discussed in your I leading article of Thursday last I should • not be found arguing with an editor in his I own paper But a discussion of the points ' (rust do some good. And from the tope I oi your leading article I conclude that a ) controversy can be waged in a fair spirit. 1 True it is that you accuse Labor of several i "characteristic drawbacks." Much of Uie ] criticism of Labor methods and (deals :<j 1 unfair because the critics do not know ■ Y'liir leader writer starts out with a <uck- ' su.-.i expulsion that your criticism rculd possibly be taken in a friendly £p..|t. Tnat ii hardly fair. 'Ve?" is an outstanding assumpti ••• tit vading your article that an alliance betwisi Labor and Liberalism can ouly exist on present lines. I do not think that is correct. Let us presume that an Independent Labor party existed for the past tan years. In which lobby, behind which party, would the Laborites be found ? i he answer is obvious. But such a Labo* T4«ity nould have left an indelible impress i n the legislation of the country. It would have closed many more of the cracks in the economic armor. It would have created a healthier and more virile democracy. It would have preserved the good qualities in the past fifteen years' legislation and eliminated the bad! Such an alliance v. uld have been a natural one. An alliance of Labor and progressive forces is a commonsen=f alliance. But Labor must have *n independent organisation. The duty cast upon Labor is to secure economic justice for the worker. The measure of Labor's responsibility is to see that the poorest in the land is cared for—to secure equality of opportunity for all. To that end it tias formulated a programme. It may »;a'o the mistake of putting its ideals >n -t$ platform. Eliminate the idealistic au.l you jave the practical—the result of s'wuy and hard work in the cause of progress*. Is there any known instance of an organisation of the strength of the Labor party, with a platform and all the paraphernalia of a party, which trusts to another party to put its principles into concrete legisla- I tion? I believe the sensible way is that ' Labor should have a distinct and self- • contained party, which would work with any party favoring its principles. Our ejtperie.ee shows us that the Liberal party comes nearest to the Labor party. And experience teaches us further that the Conservative party is dead! You say it " passes- your comprehension " whj Lauor politicians can choose this juncture for the adoption of uing Erojets. I deny that the IndepjiM.-it at or party idea is. a "disintegrdtuir j roJect. It is for the advancenioit of tie .tu rests of the workers in harnnw wiih the interests of our country. It is to further build up a solid progress. That is not disintegration. Eventually it will get est cosfttax est of jfxwxi. Tfeafc k aot doa* |

integration. It will give Labor some re» sponsibiUty, and I have always opposed influence without responsibility. It will give the retort courteous to those who sneer that the Labor party are only playT ing politic?. Above all this, Labor has on undoubted right to be directly represented jn Parliament. And after fifteen years how ia Labor represented jj, \fr e Upper House? The, Upper Souse should be abolished, | bejjevoj but the Upper Souse exists and play* a large part in in this country. And the present Upper House is the creation of a Liberal-Labor alliance. Is it a Liberal-Labor House? In the eense of anything approaching fair Labor representation it is a sham, I instance the Upper Bouse simply because, if the allianr-c in its present form were an equitable one, Labor would surely be properly represented in a nominative Cham, bar, M lheir real enemies are equally zled—and ke«mly delighted." If that means the " Conservative Press," it is not correct. If it moans Conservative politicians, it is not correct. Our "real enemies" know and can estimate the influence of. an independeat party, and fear it and act ingly. Progressives should b« able to gauge its influence as accurately. Ypn ere wt disposed to endorse my t&timate of the condition of the worker "after fifteen years," I wished to apply the simple test to the worker's wages as to how raueh was his own ft* the end of the week- Again I say that at the end of the week he is practically where he was ten years, ago, He has got an increase in wages in some cases, and in all cases another has made » profit on that increase at the end of the week. And you must remember that in our City there are still many underpaid and overworked- Warehousemen and clerks are examples. Their eases should at once be inquired into ami their grievances removed Our Labor legislation! Of course, we have Labor legislation. Said Mr Seddon just before he left us; "Jn New Zealand the class who have reaped the greatest advantage from Labor legislation are the capitalistic, land-owning class." Prom the L-ibor legislation, mart you! And they have bad special legislation of tl eir own as well. I think I know the position of the workers, and 1 stand my ground The workers nave lost the man who tried to do much for them. They should do something for themselves now to £rove that they nave learned one lesson night by the man who has gone. I adhere to my claim that the Labor party worked all they knew for the Land far Settlements Act, 1 made that claim to, show that the creed of the Labor party was wide tnough to cover all—that it is no mere class or parochial body. But with it we got the abominable lease-in-perpetuity tenure. We didn't ask for that,

I absolutely repudiate your lungeption w to ingratitude. I am prepared, always to render unto Caesar that which is Cesar's, For that reason I am anxious for economic justice for the wage-earners of the colony. I am, a» you should know, prepared to give full credit for the assistance of the Liberal party. All I want is that it also shall show its sense of gratitude for the assistance of the Labor party. Then we shall get along nicely. You, remind me of the Workers' Dwellings Act, and in that connection I cannot scare away 9 vision of Windle which insist* on haunting me. That can he managed better in the future, with the help of a Labor party. For years the strain of the cost of living has been felt by the workers, and we are promised a readjustment of the Customs tariff." I fancy the almost universal prayer of the worker is " May it be soon." If this letter tires your patience, Mr Editor, the blame rests with yourself. Almod your last words were: "Perhaps Mr Paul will have nothing but contempt for reasoning which dates back to the eighteenth century," and you quote Burke. If I have contempt for any reasoning I shall quickly tell you % But to dismirs contemptuously rpasonwgbecauso it is ancient would be unwise. Fancy what we should lose were we to discard everything behind the nineteenth century. It is unthinkable. Edmund Burke thought so too: "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors," AU I would ask is that the teaching of Burke, or any ancient or modern, shall be reviewed in the light of experience. Nevertheless, I share your admiration for Burke, for (in the words of John Morley) "he forgot that he had any interest* of his own to be promoted apart from the interests of the party with which he acted, and for those of the whole nation for which he held himself a trustee." That is the sort of unselfish service every country, wants, but, unfortunately, seldom gets. But we mu&t not forget that Burke's idea of government was "a system of the government of all by a virtuous and publicspirited few, who would be the reflection of the wishes and interests of all." And Morley pertinently asks: " Yet* what is this but the theory of the good despot in another sbapp nnd with a new face?" Burke bad sot dreamed of government of the people by the people for the people. Sir, 130 years is a long time. No railways, no telephones, no cables, no daily newspapers—

Mr Seddon's father was not born! And sc when you quote an extract from Burke, and urge me to study it, my mind comes down to modern times. With of your extract I agree. With some pf it I hardly think you yourself agree. ''Your representative owes you," says Burke (in your extract), " not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving fOU if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Fit hat teaching into practice. Let us go back five years. The Boer War was at its height. Mr Barclay represented Dunedin. He was giving his riongtUuente the'benefit of hie judgment. Yet*sir, you upheld the doctrine with much force that he was betraying his comtituents. I merely cite this case as a practical application of Burke's teaching; an instance where you disagreed with Burke. Therghts or wrong" of the war need not be considered. Mr Barclay wub pl^lged { however, but that d-'dn't prevent him giving his constituents the benefit of his judgment And neither has it done in Australia. The pledge does not reduce those who take it to a dead level of mediocrity. Jt is perfectly honorable, and eminently practical, that » man should phdge. himself. Harking back to Bui ke's celebrated Bristol dnl'veranoe. let meq'o'eDwidßym*(author of' Representative Government in England,' 'Outlines of an Industrial Science,' etc.). In the former work, after quoting Burke, and finishing with these words: " You choose a member indeed, but when you have chosen him he is not member for Bristol, but he is a m e mber of Parliament," Syme says: The fallacy of this view ig condensed in the last sentence. So far from the member for Brvtel ceasing to be the member fqr Bristol as soon as he is elected, he is never anything else during the whole time he is in Parliament- It is from Bristol that he derives bis authority, an<? thbugli it cannot dismiss him it may refuse to reappoint him when his term expire*- A member does not divest himself of his procuratorial character when he takes his. seat in Parliament. He is a member of Parliament in virtue of being a representative, and he enter? Parliament solely with a view to carry out his representative, functions. . . . Whether as a representative fir ag a trustee, he is equally bound by his pledges or instructions.. This writer deals Very fully with the question of pledges- He says again: x Pledges of seme kind are absolutely dispensable at every election. Jf no pledges were given, an appeal to the country would be a meaningless ceremony. Every such appeal is made on some issue or issues more or less distinct, or the whole proceeding is an absurdity. - The constituencies are asked, and they are assumed to express, their opinions on the 3uestione submittid to them, ond candiates are supposed to put those questions before them. There can be no question, in my opinion, but that a repre entative must represent the opinions of his mustreflect and put in concrete form these opinions, and any pledge we have ever proposed cannot hamper his usefulness or impair his judgment in serving his constituents. One of our grievances at the present moment is that members are seldom given an opportunity of " their faith in their pledges. The principles to which they are pledged seldom' come up in Parliament. Burke once declared that he had "constantly observed that the generality of people we fifty years at leapt behind in their politics." I feel that Labor is a little behind in its political organisation, and should wake up, And now seems to be a very natural lime to awaken- With apologies for trespassing at such length*—l am, etc., J. T. Path,. July 16.