CORRESPONDENCE

Grey River Argus, 26 February 1943, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

STATE MINERS’ UNION ['To the Editor] Sir,—l don’t know whether you’ll be pleased or not to have the “Argus referred to as the King's press, is apparently meant by Mr Mitchell, but I think we’ll still prefer it to maintain its status as the Peoples press. It’s dangerous to go in. lot quotations, unless one goes all tne way; and Mr Mitcheil has left himself open to another quotation, w'hicn whil e quite appropriate, I’m airaid you would not care to publish, being a family paper. However for the lime being Mr Mitchell and I are going to be in accord in a few things at anyrate. For instance, he refers to the little song of welcome as doggerel—sure it was, but it was,. as doggerel, applicable to the occasion. One does not put on silk gloves for certain occasions. How Mr Mitchell states facts, but only goes so far with them, and then has the gall to accuse other people of distortion. He is not chairman now, but will he deny that he was chairman? I said: Under the chairmanship of Mr Mitchell, “I understand.” (Tut, tut, Mr Mitchell, you have overlooked part of the King’s press!) Neither did I say that they met to discuss the State Miners’ Union business: I said that they discussed it, and laid out certain lines of action for the comrades to follow, and appointed certain of the comrades to stand for positions, and one who had the courage of his own convictions, and voted as his own ideas tended, was forbidden to stand for a position and a loyal comrade substituted. Let Mr Mitchell stop quibbling and splitting straws and deny that charge if he dare! Deny that he told the Nine Mile men that I tried to prevent him getting a hearing at the conference in question, when, as a matter of fact I appealed to Mr Benney to give him a hearing; and, as one of the comrades has regard for truth and refused to back him up, he has been “disciplined,” and, I believe, has left the Party in disgust. And Mr Mitchell talks of the truth and nodding acquaintance with it. Let him tell me which of the comrades present refuted my statements on the morning of the annual meeting! Not one I have asked heard a word of denial, and I challenge Mr Mitchell again to the truth. Again, he dodges the issue when he starts off at an angle to avoid my accusation that his brilliant .diplomacy caused him to ask for what had already been granted; what had been already granted at a previous conference, and was again asked for, was the weekly measure up for the I nickers. Mr Benney was, of course, not present at the first conference, or the need for the second would not have arisen, for the demands already put forward by the delegates, and ‘discussed by them, had to be placed before him for approval or rejection; and there, was no need, in the opinion of the executive and the majority of the members, for the whole fifteen delegates, as was evident by the attitude of the No. 2 Mine men, who expressed themselves unanimously as being satisfied with the Executive’s choice. Of course, one must admit that they had not a brilliant delegate of the Mr Mitchell type to send. I must thank Mr Mitchell for classifying me as a wise man when he quotes that “Wise men change their minds but fools never,” and then accuses me of changing my mind about the Communists being good unionists. What I did say was that “Some of the Communists were among the best members of the Union,” which is a different thing altogether. I was called a fool at the time, but some of the Coms, made me change my mind alright,' thus qualifying me. vide Mr Mitchell, to be classed as a wise man. He has a lot to say about disruptive tactics, but does not deny my statement that it was a comrade who proposed the original motion to withhold capitation fees, and the somersault came from the Com. party itself! Now I want to make one thing clear, Mr Editor. Mr Mitchell and his cobbers try to make it appear that I am attacking Communism. Such is not the case, for I regard the cult of Communism as an ideal which can, under certain conditions, be converted into a reality, as proved for instance, by the U.S.S.R.; but the difference between the real brand of Communism and the blabblab type we see so much of about, is so great that it makes me sick when I hear some of them refer to ) the Soviet people as “our Russian comrades.” They are not their comrades, and if they could be transferred to Russia at present, the tin-horn tvpe would last as long as a snowflake in Hell. There is a different type,’ I know, who have the courage to apply their convictions to deeds and leave the yap for the parodies —such as T. Spillar and McLure. Many of us knew the latter well. They meant something to Communism, and it meant something Io lh The quotation given by Student of Affairs on February 15, of 1.899.0UU votes recorded against co-operation with the C.P., to 132,000 for. was indicative of the feeling in Britain., and almost two million people cant be wrong. Perhaps they 'are not yet educated up to the point of accentin0 ’ control by the “intellectual minority. In other words, the real enemies of Communism are some oi the Communists. I am. etc., GEO. ED. ENGLISH. Runanga, February 23.