LABOR’S ORGANISATION AND OBJECTS.

Evening Star, Issue 19613, 20 July 1927, Page 12

LABOR’S ORGANISATION AND OBJECTS.

to THE EDITOR. Sir, —The correspondence in your columns on the above subjects has been most interesting. - Wo observe that, in addition to “ Messrs J. Roberts and our old friend Mr J. E. MacManus have had a slap at the Welfare League. The voluminous Mr James Roberts is really a joke. Hb takes a wli'ole column to say less than others can say in a sentence. As we did not come into the correspondence of Mr J. 1). Smith or “True Unionist,” we fail to understand why the erudite alliance secretary should couple our names together, except that Mr J. Roberts is a controversial swashbuckler who. when once started, lashes out at all- and sundry. Ho is a whole entertainment in himself, and we would never dream of taking him seriously. With’reference to Mr’MacMa.nus, we are'pleased he has recovered in health, tor, though differing with him in some opinions, he is a man we respect. If ho will exi'uso the familiarity, we wish to say “ Why is it, Mac, that you will ‘fly off the handle ’ as soon: as you-see the name ‘Welfare League’?” After all, you have sense enough to know that we have as much right to our opinions as you have to yours. To class us as friends of the exploiters is not argument, but merely reflective abuse. We challenge’ you to produce a single instance the lague has attacked trade ufloinism.or unionists, it is quite true that we oppose'Socialism and Communism, because we consider them wrong,, and we do .so in a straight arid open manner. Now, may wo draw Mr MacMa.nus’s attention to the fact'that in our letters we did not discuss the forms of organisation, but the objective, of the Alliance of Labor? This we did because, it concerns others than industrial unionists. We said the objective was Communistic. Mr W. Herbert said it was not. Then “ M.S.” came in and said Mr Herbert was wrong and the league right.. He also argued that the whole Labor movement of the

world is Communistic. That we entirely disagree with, and wo have no doubt many trad© unionists in Dunedin also disagree with it. Mr MacMauus tells us “ M.&.” is a manufacturer. May we ask said employer does ho apply the alliance objective to his own works, and, if not, why not? It roads “control of all industries by the workers who operate them. Wo know of several so-called Labor men up and down the country who say they endorse the New Zealand Alliance of Labor objective, yet when they own any business or industry themselves Giey decline to apply the policy “ control of the industry by the workers who operate it.” If there is such a thing as industrial hypocrisy, then this appears to be it. To demand that other people’s property shall be taken out of their hands whilst you cling to yonr own shows how much «hara goes with high professions of Socialism.—We are, etc., N.Z. Welfare League. July 20.