"HUNNISHNESS AND THE FARMERS' UNION."

Horowhenua Chronicle, 11 July 1916, Page 2

"HUNNISHNESS AND THE FARMERS' UNION."

(To The Editor.) Wir,—Your correspondents, Jas. Prouse and Mr Thos. Moss took up two columns of your issue on Thursday last in the attempt to excuse the t. reach of their agreement with the dairy-fac-tory employees. In my first letter 1 made the following points: First, an agreement was entered into between the employers andi employees in the dairy industry; second, the agreement was broken (made "void and useless" were Mr Moss's own words when boasting of the achievement) by the employers at the instigation of the Farmers' Union. In my next letter I made furfurther point that the Hunnish activities of that organization had (with Jas. Prouse's approval) thereby legalised: strikers in the dairying industry and deprived the dairy farmers of the protection aganst strikes given by Hlie Arbitration Act. As Jas. Prouse puts it, I *" issued ther (challenge." Very well, how has that challenge Iboen met" The case _ they put forward, when disentangled from the mass of personal .aspersions which surround it, is in effect an adimission of all the main points of the indictment, accompanied by an attempted justfication of their action, on the ground that in regard to the. agreement the A.P.U. had no right to make it, and in regard to throwing over the Arbitration Act, Jas. Prouse cites the big case of 1913 as a justification. The standing of thie A.P.TT. at the time the agreement was made was exactly as stated l by me, viz., it had got provisional registration pending the sitting of the Court to hear its application to include the dairy factory workers. The employers representatives who met those of the A.P.U. knew the position perfectly. The agreement was made, I believe, late in February. The "big bocW' of the Farmers' Union got angry when he heard of it and got 'busy with the Employers' Federation to prevent the A.P7U. being registered with the dairy factory workers included. In this they were successful, and the position then became as quoted by Jas. Prouse from the Maoriland Worker, .of 2fth May (the date is important)—"the agreement was not worth the paper it was written on." '

Their statement therefore bears out lily contention —an agreement conic to aliout the end of last February became vo• 1 and useless by the 24 th May because the opposition of the Squatters' Union prevented the Dairy Workers' Union getting registered as part of the larger Union of Agricultural and Pastoral Workers. It is rather a. Himnisii trick however, to quote the failure of the A.P.U. to register as a "reason" for breaking the agreement when that very failure was due to the action of tlioso hound by the ag>' «ml was their method of making it "void audi useless." It would be more honest and better every wnv if my opponents in this controversy would simply say straight out that they are opposed to the formation of country workers' unions altogether, that the dairy employers recognized they had made a blunder in entering into an agreement with the A.P.U. and proceeded to make the agreement null and void. They could invoke the doctrine of "supreme necessity" as Germany has done in l her case with Belgium and they would: cut a better .figure than they can possibly do the lines fthey have been pursuing. I will undertake, Mr Editor, to prepare their case for them if they wish and leave it to your readers to judge if it is not a better case than they are putting up now. In regard to Jas. Prouse's citation of the big strike as a reason for throwing over I the Arbitration Act, well, Sir, it "is" funny. He says the farmers learned a lesson from the strike. I have hoped that was true but must confess that hie references to it now leave me very doubtful. In 1913 the attitude taken up by the 'Employers' Federation and the farmers' union was that the workers must register under the Act. To compel the unions to do so they threw the whole of New Zealand into turmoil and when the men were on strike formed new unions registered under the Act to oust the previously unregistered ones. Jas. Prouse approved of all that, but now the same Jas Prouse is defending the cancelling of registrations and opposes the aecognition of agreement mad 3 under the provisions of the some Act and evidently believes it will be dangerous to have a union registered! under it. If he was right in '1913 then he is wrong now; if he is right now then he was wrong in 1913; the same applies to the Squatters' Union. I leave him and them to choose which horn of their dilemma they are going to impale themselves

It is gratifying to know that the farmers are beginning to rhi-ik. t (in: certain that if they think long at all they will see the danger I already re-

ferred to—that of allowing a squattercontrolled union to make them a chopping block on which to settle their differences with labour. "The farmers' eons were called to Wellington to protect their produce d.uring the strike." Whofce produce, Mil- Editor'' That of the squatter? No; •it was butter and cheese tihat was in danger through delay in transport, not meat and wool. Keep on thinking, Mr Parmer, and yon will soon arrive as a better understanding with labour and then the big monopolists will have to leave go their deadly grip on both. In regard t® Mr Moss's letter, apart from the points already dealt with, it is merely a tirade against myself built on the assumption that anyone who believes in the better wages and condiions of work which inevitably follow organization, is of necessity an enemy to the farmers. To any student of economics or history the assumption is too ridiculous to call for an answer. It is evidently too much to expect that the provincial president of the Farmers' Union should have a cknowledge of anything beyond his daily work.

Jas. Pro use expresses surprise that 1 should find a personal note in his first letter and then characteristically justifies hie personalities by say I used strong language. Now, Sir, lam not complaining of peronalitieg except on the ground that they obscure the issues and waste time. lam 100 busy a man to take up public controversy for the mere sake of hitting somebody, besides it is too easy to be worth while. There is however a difference between using strong language in stating a case on the one hand and becoming personal in doing so on the other. Let me illustrate: some time *ago (the 4th August last) I heard Jas. Prouse passionately declaiming on ia public platform on the the sanctity ol~agreements. He justified the plunging of tlie whole world into war to uphold: that splendid principle, he condemned Germany's action in regard to Belgium in very strong language indeed, but he was not personal in any way. Now, Sir, if I was to contrast the Jas. I'rouse who so vociferously condemned The breaking of agreements with the Jas. Prouse who is now using jour columns to excuse the same thing, it might fairly be regarded as personal. I could ev ; en go further him —if the dairy factory employees were to go on strike (their kind of war) to uphold the sanctity of their agreement, would he still eta ml by the principle? That kind of personality is so easy that I have purposely refrained from it; and besides it dioesn't get us anywhere. 1 hope, Sir, that Jas. Prouse, in writingagain, will try to keep to the points of the indictment, and if he has any kind of defence, will trot it out. If he has nothing better than he has given us so far let him say so, and not waste any more time.—l am, etc., J. ROBERTSON. Levin, Bth July, 1916.