THE H.B TRIBUTE. TUESDAY, OCT. 31st., 1916. ABROGATION OF AUTHORITY.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VI, Issue 270, 31 October 1916, Page 4

THE H.B TRIBUTE. TUESDAY, OCT. 31st., 1916. ABROGATION OF AUTHORITY.

The figuies cabled to us this morning with regard to the conscription referendum in Australia in no way improve the position, the majority against the proposal now standing at something like 90,000, a number which only an exhaustive and unanimous vote on the part of the soldiers in the field would wipe out. It may* not be generally known among our readers that a message of cheer and encouragement was, sent in the name of the workers of New Zealand to those in Australia/vho were using every effort and influence to negative the proposal for the introduction of compulsory service. This “manifesto,” as it appears to have been dubbed by its framers themselves, purports to voice the sentiments of “the organised workers ot New Zealand,” whom it sweepingly declares to be “opposed to conscription, every representative body of Labour inthe Dominion having declared against it.” The manifesto then goes on to say A large and representative Labour congress held in Wellington in January of this year, issued a strong, comprehensive and unanswerable manifesto against it. The New Zealand Labour Party has the repeal of the recently-passed Military Service Act on its platform. In this country there is no section of organised Labour in favour of conscription. The people here were given no opportunity of expressing their opinion on conscription. It was thrust on them by a Coalition Government which combined the inherent vices of Toryism and Liberalism. In determinedly fighting Conscription the workers of Australia are fighting the battle of the workers of Britain and Europe as well. Therefore, the New Zealand Labour Party wishes the organised workers of Australia success in their courageous and strenuous stand against the forces of militarism and capita.ism. It applauds their fine, thorough, and determined attitude, and will hail their success as the most hopeful event of a dark and depressing period. Conscription is the negation of liberty. It is the strongest weapon of capitalism. Every worker who votes against it is striking a blow for liberty. Workers of Australia your opportunity is great. It ott can hurl, back the forces of militarism. you can help the cause of humanity. To your own selves be true. Vote against conscription.

This message is signed “for the New Zealand Labour Party” by “J. McCombs, M.P., President of the National Executive J, McKenzie, Vice-President : and J. Glover, Sec-retary-Treasurer.” Among those v. ho also subscribe their names, apparently as a moral guarantee of the officials’ bona tides, are several “exmembers”—presumably of the Exe-cutive-including J. T. Paul, M.L.C., A Walker, M.P.. It. Semple, and others well-known in political Labour circles.

j While it is quite possible that I these gentlemen have in their mani--1 ftsto—Labour leaders, by the way. j have developed a singular liking for resounding words, whose old associations are sometimes scarcely in keeping with Labour’s declared iceals —voiced the opinion of some substantial proportion of the workers of New Zealand. But that they could speak authoritatively in the name of that class as a whole, or even on behalf of a majority, we 1 very much doubt. In any event, | their assumption to speak on the part of the Labour Party, even as a J purely’ political entity, does not ap- | pear to have been well founded. Air. ! W. A. Veitch, who was returned to • Parliament, and who sits, as a representative of Labour, does not, at {any rate, agree with the sentiments j which, to use the manifesto’s own I word, have been “thrust” upon | him. in common with the rest of his • fellow-workers in the Dominion, by ' the National Executive. He. in fact, i entirely disagrees with them, and l in so, v.’e imagine, expresses the feelings of the majority of. those , who elected him to his place. In 1 the course of a letter in a WellingI ton contemporary 7 he entirely’ disi claims any sympathy’ with “the i twelve or fourteen people who presume to speak on behalf of the. wageearners of New Zealand, and says: “1 am afraid the authors of the manifesto have overlooked the allimportant fact that the Allies are at present straining every’ nerve to prevent a German Conscript Army from securing control of the vJorld and : imposing the Kaiser’s will on us (not by argument, but by’ force, which cannot be successfully combatted by argument, be it ever so convincing), and that if the Allied should fail to sustain that effort New Zealand and Australia must become German dependoncies, and as such become subject to the Kaiser’s conscript military system. Many of us do not like conscription, but we are not preparel to sacrifice the entire nation rather than submit to it. More, especially we know’ that such sacrifice must necessarily involve us in a werse form of conscription. How can it be denied that if Australia and New Zealand should fail to adequately support the Mother Country, such failure would be or moral and material assistance to our enemy 1” He then goes on to repudiate without hesitation the statement that “the organised workers of New Zealand are opposed to conscription.” “I deny,” he writes, “that they are opposed to the Military Service Act of last session. I am convinced that a large majority o New Zealand wage-earners approve of the Act because it will deal with ail alike regardless of social status.”

There are many more pertinent extracts that might be made from Mr. Veitch’s letter, but we must be content with the following:—“The manifesto states that ‘Conscription is the negation of liberty.’ This word liberty is much misused. In view of all circumstances at present, conscription is, in my judgment, the only available weapon to us to defend our liberty, and whether we like it or not we must swallow the pill or die. I firmly believe that what most of our antimilitary people are agitating for is liberty to stay at home while others defend them and their 1 liberty, those others being at the same time handicapped for want of their physical support, to which they are in common fairness entitled. Why should the sacred duty of national defence be performed exclusively by those who are conscientious enough

to take up the burden voluntarily,' while equally able men who shirk or fail to realise their clear duty remain at home and profit by the volunteers’ sacrifice ? Citizens rights and privileges involve national responsibilities. Too many married men and under-aged youths go to the front under the voluntary system, while under a properly organised system only those who ought to go will be sent. After all it is not ®o much a matter of forcing men to go—for very few need forcing—but a system by which each man will be told when his turn has come, Our first duty is to the soldiers in the trenches, and their greatest desire and need is more men to support them. It is particularlv unfortunate for Labour in New Zealand that this disloyal manifesto has been issued in their name, for if ever men played the game the New Zealand wage-earner has in this great struggle for liberty. If our forefathers had argued for liberty instead of fighting for it when the necessity arose, they would never have possessed it to hand down to us.” Mr. Veitch winds up by saying that “these academic pacifists have shaken the public faith in us (the Labour Party), and created a fear that we would not act in the interests of the country if we should secure our fair quota in Parliament. So far we have not failed for want of ideals but through lack of good hard common-sense. If we are to take our proper place in the councils of the nation we must prove ourselves worthy of the trust by placing the Empire’s interests first instead of acting as if our first duty is to the shirker.” We fancy that his presentation to the case" for compulsory service expresses much better than does the manifesto the true feeling of the vast majority of New Zealand’s wage-earners. The manifesto may not have had much influence on the Australian voting, but it may have decided some few individuals —enough perhaps, to determine the fate of the issue, with all its vital consequences. New Zealand workers should therefore awake to the responsibility which lies upon them for allowing it to go forth in their name.