ABOVE THE LAW

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 293, 11 October 1922, Page 5

ABOVE THE LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL WHEN- IT SUIT& V, AND T. WORKERS AND ALLIANCE OF LABOUR.

Those of our readers who have been following events connected with the

desire of the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association, as declared by their secret postal ballot of April last, to link up. with the Alliance of Labour and the attitude of the Government thereon in compliance with the will ol the organised employers of , the Dominion, as represented by their faithful henchman, the Welfare League, will have noted with interest the latest turn given to Jhe issue by the Parliamentary discussion, of last. week. It is right that this problem should have full prominence in the public mind, and, for once, the Masse/ Government placed itself "on side" by allowing the discussion to go forward until a •division' was reached. It was sure of its majority, so its advantage lay that way.) Boiled down to bedrock limits, the issue at stake was WHETHER THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE ON LAWFUL LINES IS A UNIVERSAL RIGHT OR A LIMITED RIGHT. The House, by 53 votes to 11, declared the right to be a limited one, and we now liave, clear cut, the real division of ■thought as between the Reform, the Liberal, and the nondescript political representatives on the one hand, and the liberty-loving and progressive po-, litical representatives—the Labour Party—on the other. The issue wa3 such that no member could -evade it. He had to be on one side or the other, and 53 members declared by their votes that, BECAUSE IT WAS INCONVENIENT to their schemes and ways cf looking at things, a limit must be placed on the right of workers to organise on lines that suited themselves. So these 53 let freedom of choice go hang, trooped meekly into the lobby at the heels of Mr. Massey, and declared' by doing so that they were in favour of the predominant political party of the day governing as its sweet will dictates, irrespective of the constitutional and lawful rights of those whom the exercise- of that, sweet will may oppress. This usurpation of authority is a defiance to the rights of the people. Parliament is always declarer! to he the final court of appeal where the liberty of the subject is concerned, ye! a'majority-of the present Parliament prostituted their duty as the guardians of liberty, just becau&e they dislike the Alliance of Labour and tremble at. ike thought of the influence it will ul timateiy have on the public mind of New Zealand. That they are, and SHOWED THEMSELVES TO BE, HOPELESSLY IGNORANT of the aims, objects and methods of the Alliance goes without saying— the very sound of the word '-'Labour" is anathema to them, although one section of the Massey followers on this occasion sought to disguise the fact by hyphenating the word into the name of thtir party. But true lovers of liberty—and tho N.Z. Labour Party members have shown themselves, by speech, etc., entitled to be so described—are rapidly penetrating the sophisims and platitudes of those who give the sacred word mere lip service, and they skilfully used this latest occasion to force tiiesc guardians of liberty (sic) to show their true colours.

Workers —Liberty Lovers —Citizens of New Zealand— the Massey Party, yea, the Wilford Party, have declared by their votes on this Alliance of Labour issue that YOU MAY NOT ORGANISE to the limits that the laws and the constitution allow.' THBY HAVE DECLARED THAT THE . GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY IS ABOVE THE LAW. They have declared it just as clearly and definitely as did Charles I. in his clay, when he decided to levy taxes without lawful authority. Having decided to ovsr-ride the law, they have gone further (as King Charles I. did in his time); they have decided that the Postmaster-General may take away the livelihood" of any Post' and Telegraph employee who' asserts his light to do what the law and the constitution allows him to do. Could the issue be any broader than this? Could anyone desire more clear-cut ■evidence of the abuse of authority than this discloses? The PostmasterGeneral lias said —certainly not In. so many plain words, but just as tmrnistakeably as if plain words had been U3ed —

"IF YOU LINK UP WITH THE AL< LTANCB OP LABOUR, WHICH I ADMIT YOU HAVE EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO DO, I WILL DISMISS PROM THE POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT THOSE OF YOUR NUMBER WHOM IT PLEASES ME TO DISMISS."

And 53 members of Parliament of all «ba<U§ 9l political ppinion. except

Labour, hare * approved" this nouncement where they haven't actu- ' ally applauded him for. making I-t—■ and most of them have done that too. The precedent created is an amazing one, for it strikes at the very i root principle of Government by the '■ consent of the. governed. Who amongst you has consented to give the Massey Government the right to exceed its lawful authority to prevent law-abiding citizens doing those things which they lawfully may? It I there is one who has knowingly done this, then he has also consented —he cannot escape from the logic of the position—to the Government of the day exceeding its lawful authority and ordering him to do those things which he does not wish to do and which he may lawfully refuse to do. One would have hoped that there was not one man or woman, who would agree to a Government breaking the bounds 'of its authority, yet so far from this being the case, we find 53- people— presumed to be leaders of public I opinion—actually AIDING AND ABETTING THE i MASSEY GOVERNMENT in its unlawful embargo on the propo- | sal of the Post and Telegraph work- ! ers to ally themselves with the Alli j ance of Labour. Truly, as Tennyson says, in his "Vision of Sin":— He that roars for Liberty, Faster binds a tyrant's power; And the tyrant's cruel glee Forces on the freer hour. [Note. —Owing to the exigencies of our printing establishment, we have to hold over our account of what actually transpired during the debate.— ; Editor.]