THE INDUSTRIAL MERGER.

Evening Star, Issue 19634, 13 August 1927, Page 3

THE INDUSTRIAL MERGER.

TO TUB tIIITOK. Sir,—Despite what 1 slated in my last letter, your correspondent, Air j. D. Smith, has followed his now wellestablished rule of explaining in bis next letter what be meant in bis previous one. I’robahly be has a jpiod reason lor this, ft may bo that for lack of matter lie is compelled to rehash and reiterate all bo lias said, and to him this may be an argument in support of his case. Your readers, however, cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that All J. D. Smith has become so obsessed with his central office sprat-catching scheme (bat bis “think tank” cannot either contain or entertain any other idea, and for that reason all lii.s arguments circulate round the orbit of bis obsession. In my last letter 1 asked him where, bow, ami in what manner was the met,hod of organisation of (lie Alliance of Labor at fault in the railwaynieirs strike, and he replies by saying that these- men were .compelled to accept longer hours and lose valuable privileges while the Alliance ol Labor “ looked on absolutely impotent lo extend a helping band.' Another question to Air Smith now.- In what way was (he Alliance of Labor impotent to lend a. helping band? How does Air Smith know? Will be plea<e be so kind as to tell your readers what be really means, or what information ho lias in regard to the recent railwaymeu's strike and the Alliance of Labor? Before 1 conclude with this matter, I desire to remind Afr Smith that, al though many people throughout Now Zealand have by insinuation accused the Alliance of Labor of not doing this. that, and the other thing, every public statement made in that direction will be replied to in future. Ail' Smith lias failed miserably to prove bis ease, but like many other am (-Labor men he is willing to misrepresent an. organisation not by direct statement but by innuendo and insinuation. I note also that he attempts a journalistic “slither,” so to speak, in connection with liis accusation that I stated to the Prime Minister at a recent deputation that 1 represented 80,000 workers, and be wants to know in what substantial way was he wrong. Throughout the whole of this correspondence- 1 have never accused Air Smith of making one substantial statement; as a matter of fact, his statements were entirely ol the “ make-believe ” . type word-spin-ning and suggestions. 1 clearly proved to °Mr Smith in a former letter that his statements in regard to this matter wore wrong, that they were intended as a sneer, and haying done that much f havo finished with them, for, much as J would like to educate your correspondent in LHoor matters, T doubt very much whether it is worth the trouble to our movement. He states: “I have proven beyond cavil, and have set out the factors, that there is one fatal thing the matter with the Alliance of Labor . . . and

that is that it cannot function.” There you are now! That-has killed the Alliance of Labor stone-dead, and all we have to say is: “ Alay the Lord have mercy on its soul,” and allow Air Smith to bury the outfit. Fortunately, I am blessed with a sense of humor; otherwise I would frequently feel angry with the type of man who sets out to kill an organisation by a stab of the pen and is satisfied that he has done it. He says the Alliance of Labor cannot function, despite the fact that it is functioning every day of the week, and has done so effectively for at least seven years. The Alliance of Labor has played a great part in many important

disputes in New Zealand, and on every occasion lias fftiiclioned without a4.V difficulty whatever, and has protected workers who would otherwise have been hopeless against that well-organised one union of employers. What Air Smiih is really trying to do is to tell the workers in Otago that they can expect no Hope from a national organisation or a, loeal organisation—in other words, to submit to their fate whatever it may be. He is the gloomiest industrial prophet south of the line. He accuses me ot waxing indignant over something he said. 1 assure your correspondent that lie does himself credit overmuch. There was no necessity to wax indignant over anything he lias ever said or written. There is no need to “ blast forth a denial.” We have reports of conferences of Iho Labor movement for years jiast which are a definite denial to Air Smith’s statements in regard to how conference decisions arc arrived at. We have minutes of the proceedings which show that the decisions were arrived at after serious discussion and consideration, and as a parting shot on this subject may I remind Air Smith that, with all his postulations about being a good Labor man, be has done the Labor movement a- distinct disservice by insinnaling that underground methods are adopted at Labor conferences to arrive at definite decisions on any subject. Tliis is, (n use a pet word of your correspondent. “ substantially ” what the opponents of Labor have been saving for years past. Mr Smith lias joined (he,fold in parroting again the anti-Labnr propaganda of the Welfare League, the Employers’ Federation, and agents of big business generally. In the last paragraph of his letter Mr Siniili has become very personal, and demonstrates the attitude of the cross old man who cannot assimilate new ideas or a hoy who has had ,v “spanking” and cannot retaliate. He states that democracy won’t work. This indicates that Afr Smith, in addition to being self-assertive and arrogant, is also an autocrat. Democracy has never had an opportunity to work as far as the economic and political government is concerned, hut democracy does all the useful work of the world, and I would remind Air Smith that in the Labor movement we have neither use nor time for anti-democrats or autocrats. Their place is with (he autocrat class, the dominating class, the class that exploits and profiteers, the class that has enslaved and brutalised the democracy of the world. Let Air Smith, if he chooses, side with that class, but we doubt very much if the workers in Otago will cherish him ns a bosom Labor friend once he has made this pronouncement.

I note that lie had hauled down his flag, and in doing so lie has hurled another insult. 1 doubt whether Mr Smith could even bo a cheerful winner; lie is certainly a bad loser, without the saving grace of a sense of humor. He accuses me of indulging in “ abusive phrase-spinning.” and in a borrowed phrase be accuses mo of being devoid of reason. Possibly some of your renders may consider that I have used terms in this, correspondence more forcible than polite, but those who have read the correspondence will, 1 know, admit that reason and logic would be wasted on Mr J. D. Smith. , 1 submit that Mr Smith has nothing to grumble aHout. There is no reason why he should whine'and be so nasty, for, through the methods I have adopted, lie has benefited much in the way of enlightenment on many subjects on which prior to this correspondence he assumed he was the one and only authority.—l am, etc., Jau. Roberts, Secretary, N.Z. Alliance of Labor. August 10.