Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1931. SEAMEN’S DISPUTE.

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 October 1931, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1931. SEAMEN’S DISPUTE.

wanton disregard of the national welfare,” “disloyalty to the union,” and “without any semblance of authority.” “The alleged cause of this strike is utterly ridiculous.” These comments on the Sydney seamen’s strike do not come from ship-owners, or bloated capital istrf, but from two staunch Labourites, and unionists, namely. Mr. Scullin and Mr. Hogan (Premier of Victoria). Nothing more, is really needed, to prove the wanton nature of the hold-up. which would never have occurred but for Communist activities. The fact that the seamen are themselves divided, and half-hearted about the strike proposals, and that most of the men away from Sydney, are continuing to work the ships, is further demonstration that the men are not being victimised, and that there is no reason for public sympathy to be given to the trouble-mongers. The story of the trouble may be outlined as follows: —About two months ago, a trimmer from the Canberra was landed, ill, in Syd-

nfiy, during the ship’s voyage north. I A meeting was being held in Sydney at the time, and a ship’s officer had to visit the meeting to obtain a substitute. It is generally agreed that the meeting compelled the ship to take a prominent militant. Later, on the return to SjTlney, this employee was discharged, in order to make way for the sick man who had recovered. A union official visited the Canberra and informed the crew that the dismissed militant had been “victimised.” The official was ordered to leave the ship. A special meeting of the union promptly decided to demand reinstatement of the militant and an apology to the official. The Canberra was then denied a crew and had to be laid up. The Westralia. ordered to take up her passengers, was later also refused a crew, and the freighter Wear was similarly treated because she had taken some of the Canberra’s cargo. The militant concerned is a prominent Communist, and a naturalised “Britisher,” named Schelley, whose actual marine career is said

by unionists, to be of a few days .only. It may be understandable why he, personally, wishes to insist, on the ship-owners employing him, but why their refusal should be deemed sufficient reason for a general strike is less clear. The fact is that Communists in the Union seek trouble, and ensue it,

and their efforts are unceasing to “white-ant” all unions which will not agree to Moscow doctrines and/ methods. It would have been thought that Australian seamen have had, recently, more than enough of idle ships and unemployment, and why so virile a section of the community permit

heavy losses to be forced on them by a few agitators is difficult to understand. Lack of moral courage to face the unscrupulous Communists, or to speak in union meetings against the eloquent agitators, and the absence of organisation by the moderates, partly account for the Communists’ ability to have their wishes carried out, despite the fact that the majority of the seamen wish work to be carried on as usual. Fortunately, the Federal authorities have declared war on the Communists, and have promised adequate protection to the volunteers taking the place of the striking seamen. If the police are insufficiently strong to overcome the “basher gangs” or “workmen’s defence corps,” the “Nlew Guard” will come to their assistance. Opinions will differ as to the wisdom of such bodies as the “New Guard” (which is largely composed of trade unionists) interfering in these disputes, particularly as the police declare they are capable of preserving law and order, but Australian standards and conditions have so deteriorated that departures from normal procedure are perhaps inevitable.