NEW ZEALAND LABOUR PARTY

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXI, Issue 15334, 17 June 1910, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND LABOUR PARTY

TO THU EDITOR. Sir, —In further reply to “ A.S.A and others of your correspondents who contend that the Labour Party of Australia has borrowed its policy from tho Liberal Party of New Zealand, perhaps the following quotations from the mouthpiece -of Mr Fisher’s party, tho Australian Labour paper, the “ Worker,” may enlighten them a little. In tho issue of April 7 lost this paper says:—“The issue to he decided on Wednesday is whether the government of Australia is to bo conducted in the interests of monopoly or for the benefit of tho whole of tho people. That is the great dividing line which separates the parties. Tiro Labour Party declares that tho progress ol Australia is retarded by reason of the undeniable fact that largo areas of our land aro withheld from useful occupation in the interests of a small but wealthy class. The Labour Party proposes to take immediate steps to end this giant evil. It places in the forefront of its platform a proposal to place a heavy tax upon these huge estates, so that they may no longer be held out of use.”

“The Labour Party stands also for tho New Protection. Wo hold that the Parliament which secures his market to the manufacturer should extend its protective care to the wages of his employees. In short, tho benefit of a protectionist policy should be equitably shared between the manufacturer, tho workman and the consumer. More than this, it is the duty of Parliament to protect the Australian worker in unprotected industries equally with those in protected industries. The Labour Party therefore asks that power be given to the Commonwealth Parlinmont to extend the beneficent provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act so that justice may be done to every worker in every industry in the Commonwealth. Wo aim to establish in Australia a people, to whom honest work shall bring sufficient remuneration to enable them to live and rear their families as befits civilised individuals living in a civilised community.” “ The protection of the consumer brings tho Labour Party into direct conflict with trusts., combines and other monopolies. Wo hold that tho experience of every country in the world shows it to he impossible to control a well-established trust. Once a combine secure undisputed possession of an industry there is no remedy short of nationalisation, so the Labour Party stands for tho nationalisation of monopolies. We have recently seen how the great sugar monopoly has been able to exact toll from the whole of tho Australian people. By a mere stroke of the managerial pen tho price of a commodity used in every home has been raised throughout Australia. The Shipping Ring, the Coal Vend, the Tobacco Trust, and the agricultural implement monopoly aro other instances of the rapid growth of trusts and combines in Australia. Tho time for action is now, while these are in their infancy. In America they have bought land and legislatures with equal ease. What they have done there they will do here if the people aro foolish enough to allow them to flourish. Tho Fusion includes every friend of these monopolies. How can the people of Australia support it.” Thus speak the workers of Australia, and what applies there applies with equal force here. The Labour Party of New Zealand is.going to close in deadly combat with monopoly and secure to the producer tho full product <* hb " r - 1 ““■r'hvxteb Sydenham, June 9, 1910.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, Your correspondent, Mr H. Hunter, says in reply to my letter on tho result of the silly attempt to run a Trades Council candidate for the Lyttelton Harbour Board, that the reasons for the crushing defeat of the man they put forward were, first, that lie had to face a combination of the forces opposed to Labour; second, that the other two candidates were strong men and third that thsro avbs a limited franchise. Allow me to reply to these three points one by one. First, combination against tlieir candidate.—Tho actual fact is that although every effort was made to get one of the two Lyttelton candidates to withdraw, neither of them, owing to mutual ambition, would do so, so that in reality, instead of having to fight a combination, Mr Voyco had to meet a

' kxl enemy. So much for combination. . and, tho strength of tho opposition.—lt is doubtful if thero will ever bo a chance to face weaker opposition. Mr Cook lias an excellent record on tho Harbour Board, but I understand that neither ho nor Mr Webb are speakers. In fact, they both appear to havo recognised this, and so called no public meeting to address. Mr Webb, of course, had no record on tho Harbour Board at all, and yet ho himself, with no record and no speaker, polled nearly double the votes which Mr Voyco did. This disposes of Mr .Hunter’s second '.son for tho defeat of the candidate whom ho backed.

Third, that tho franchise was so limited. —Every householder and his wife had a vote, and I have ascertained that thero are nearly 1600 voters on the roll in a small town of under 4000 inhabitants; in fact, outside of those, under twentv-ono years of age, single people and prisoners in the gaol, every ono in Lyttelton had a vote. This is the reply to the third reason for the defeat of the nominee of the present Trades Council gang.

Air Hunter says that none of the secretaries of unions canvassed on Mr Yoyoes account. T will name one and his name is Hiram Hunter. Air Hunter also attended in Lyttelton on the day of tho poll, and worked hard for tho return of the so-called .Labour candidate. Of course I know Air Hunter must find time hang heavy on his hands, and ij do not blame him for putting in some time working for the man who ho thought was best fitted for a scat on the Harbour Board, but why should he deny it? Is ho ashamed of Air Vovee. Let me tell him ho has no need to be. On the contrary, Air '/cryco has every reason to he ashamed ■U the bulk of those who ran him. they would spoil the chance of a Demosthenes. Now, let me tell him why a man of irreproachable character and of good average ability, the secretary of tho biggest union in Canterbury, and run by the whole strength of what in called the Labour Party (save the mark), in a town composed almost altogether of labourers, and wharf labourers at that, polis only ono vote out of every five cast. The reason is because every real worker and Radical is disgusted with the gang of hungry billet hunters who at present are mouthing about an independent Labour Party Yoin every soap-box lid and at every vtrect corner. Look at tho contemptible farce that is now being played at Auckland. Look at the number of unions that have severed their connection with the present Trades and Labour Council, and then say whether 1 write too strongly. Allow me before I close to thank Air J. AY. Hunter for his manly and most proper protest against tho absolute indecency of a man who has to sit and weigh evidence and promote peace between employor and employed on a judicial bench taking the part which Mr M’Cullough is taking in the present election at Auckland. AVlir.t would Messrs Whiting, Powell and Co. say if idle employers’ representative so far forgot himself as to act as Air M’Cullough lias done? lam a worker, hut 1 do have some sense of the eternal fitness of things, and I only hope that Air .M’Cullough will yet he dealt with as lie deserves for his impudent attempt to degrade the judicial bench.—l am. etc-, JAMES BAIN.