Flaying a Liberal

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 295, 25 October 1922, Page 3

Flaying a Liberal

.'AUCKLAND A&R.&. SLOGS TAEA- . , jSAKI SMITIT, TO. THE BOUiff- ; . . . ■ dary. . - ■■ ■ ..

Some raonths ago the Auckland Branch of the A.S.R.S. issued a circular appealing .to the "Branches of this organisation to support a proposal to affiliate fith the New Zealand Labour Party. The only Brancii, so Tftc Slaoiilaiul Worker is informed, that rejected the appeal was thai at New Plymouth, which expressed confidence in Mr. S. G, Smith, the liberal M.P. for Taranakl. New Plymouth's reply to Auckland led to the following correspondence -between the tv/o. Branches and Mr. Smith:—

AUCKLAND TO NEW PLYMOUTH. : May 18th, 1922. Branch Secretary, , New 'Plymouth.' . Dear Comrade, —At our last branch meeting your reply to our circular re affiliation with the New Zealand Labour Party was-discussed.

I need hardly say that your remarks caused much criticism and comment, and I was requested to reply to them.

We are, indeed, greatly surprised to think that at the present time .when the workers are fighting for their very existence in the class struggle, that a body of workers and particularly a sister Branch Of ours, should be no utterly Ignorant of their economic position as to place confidence In a man who- supported the capitalistic government to reduce their own and our standard of living. I would like to point out that those who are not with us arc against us. The recent debates and divisions on such a vitai matter as workers' wages showed our Parliamentary representatives In their true colours and the ■representative whom your Branch is content to repose.-confidence in,-turn-ed you down, and we feel sorry for you in your blind faith. However, I am very pleased to say that as far as the rest of out Branches are conceuned they are all in favour, or at least convinced that the Official Labour Party is the only Party so far that the workers can expect to get any justice from.

We hope, however, that you will ere )long realise your true position as ■workers and not only be content to argue for an existing wage but press forward for Labour to get the full product of its toii. Yours fraternally. (Signed) TOM STANLEY, - Secretary. NEW PLYMOUTH'S REPLY. August 3rd, 1922. "Mr. Stanley, ■Secretary, Auckland Braucn. Dear Sir. —It is the policy of the members of this Branch to give eyery person having a grievance or an accusation made against him a■ fair andImpartial hearing. Therefore your comnumicaiion of May 18th was handed to Mr. S. Smith, M.P. His answer you will find enclosed.

It is admitted there, must be memibers.of your Branch who are capable of judging a person by ths good.work he is doing"; but the members of this Branch will need more evidence than is contained in your communication before transferring their con'fldence to such persons who are generally selected by the Official Labour Party. Yours fraternally, B. H. FOGDEN.

SVIIAT SMITH SAID FOR .HfifISELF. Wellington, July. 15, 1922. Branch Secretary, A.8.H.5., New Plymouth. Deai , Sir, —I am very ranch obliged to you for your courtesy in allowing mc to peruse the" attached letter received by your Branch, from the Secretary, Auckland Branch. This letter calls for a very clear reply, and I only desire to say—and most emphatically -— that Thomas Stanley, Secretai-y. of tho Auckland Branch, is either woefully ignorant— or he has deliberately mis-stated the lacts.

Never in any divisions since I became a member of Parliament havo I voted to reduce the standard of. living of the members of the second division of the railway service. Then the letter goes on to state— '"The recent divisions and debates on such a vital matter as workers'' wages feliowed our Parliamentary representatives in their true colours and the representative whom your Branqli is content to repose confidence tinned yon down.* . My answer rs : : "I -give this statement the ll© direct/? ! It is now up to Thomas Stanley, if &c has "any spunk, to apologise—or produce to your Branch the dates of the debates or divisions in it 3s alleged J turned my old Etatteo flown.

It is" proper that i<sbo.uld ; . refer yoji to lliese new-found friends fry driving • J«ur attentipa to H»aear4 I#, page

1184 and page 1185, when the Government Railways Bill was before the House in 1919.

Sir Joseph Ward moved, To reduce the salary of the Assistant-General Manager of Railways by £1 "as an indication that in the opinion of the House the riiembers of the Second Division are entitled to more consideration." You will find my name vot 7 ing for this motion, and the name of the Leader of the Labour group, Mr. H. Holland, voting against it.

As a life-long advocate for the rights of Labour, misrepresentation and ignorance is futile, and I insist on the Secretary of the Auckland Branch stating the position correct--17.

Again thanking you, Yours- fraternally, • SYDNEY G. SMITH. A. Fogdeu, Esq. . A STRAIGHT ANSWER.

Auckland, August 10th, 1922,

Mr. A. Fog'den, Branch Secretary, New Plymouth.

Dear Comrade,—l was pleased receive your reply dated August 3rd to my letter of May ,18th, also for enclosure from Mr. S. G. Smith, M.P., which I shall have pleasure In l-eply-ingv to in due course, and of which I shall take the opportunity of torwarcting a copy to you. As Mr. Smith, refers mc back to "Hansard" of 1919 (which appears to be irrelevant to my letter) It will he necessary for mc to make myself acquainted with that particular debate, and also arm myself with other necessary and easily obtainable facts with which to assail your honourable member.

I agree with you that there are members of my Branch (in fact 99 per cent, of them) who are capable of judging a person by the good work he does, hence their decision to support their own class party, namely, th'j New Zealand Labour Party.

I must admit, judging from the latter part of your letter, which reads like-"a quotation from a member of the Welfare League or seme capitalistic institution, that your branch would need more evidence to cause it to transfer its support to the Workers' Party. Continue to think as you do, and that evidence will he found.

I would, however, just like to point out for your information that the New Zealand Labour Party is made up of about 25,000 members, mostly workers, and including railwaymen, and "those persons" you refer to are selected by a ballot of the aforesaid members. Surely that is democratic enough and sound, and your statement is surprising to mc, as emanating from a Trade Union Secretary. Yours fraternally, TOM STANLEY. SMITH AND HIS SUBTERFUGE MOPPED UP. Auckland, : . August 21, 1922.'

S. G. Smith, Esq., M.P., Wellington. Dear Sir, —I am indebted to the Secretary of our New Plymouth' Branch for doing mc the honour of forwarding yoiir letter of July 15th, in answer to mine of May 18th to. them.

I am indeed delightful to receive it and have much niore pleasure in replying - to it, afier noting your attempts to side step the charges made by mc. Though the tone of your letter may have been meant to scare or frighten some individuals into making apologies the reverse is the effect upon mc. It has aroused in mc that spunk you may have thought I lacked, but when a man Is sure of the position he takes up, well, then, he has no cause for fear. Far from making any apologies, I shall endeavour to point out to you the actions in Parliament on your part that inspired any first letter. Since I received your, letter I have boon fortunate enough to secure , my annual leave, and as you reI feri'qd mc to Hansard, "which I do not always have the privilege of reading, I have occupied some of my time in studying the same for periods. I shall now> therefore, proceed to produce tor your benefit the evidence I have adduced. Referring to the divisions on the recent wages reductionH, I find in Han-'i sard 193; -page 559, that Mr. Fraser, for the Labour Party ,\mcrved that the bill be read that day six months. Yon voted with the Government. On the second reading of the Bill, the Labour Party again divided tlic House. You voted again with the Government, after explaining: briefly that it , you : voted, against the second reading" you could be charged with voting against the reduction of your own salary. When the Labour Party divided the House again on tho third reading you this time voted with them, and yet it appears to mc that tlie same reason* existed for voting against the second reading as against the third.. If it was wrong for you to vote Against the sec- ' pad reading "It certainly was wroiijg for

you to vote for tjie- third. ' On page 701 of same Hansard, you

voted with "the Government when Mr. Massey moved: "All rates of salaries and wages which .by-any scheme of classification are appropriate to any -position or office shall-'fee deemed to be reduced by the amount of auy reduction effected by this-Act in the rate of. remuneration of any person holding such position or office." On this occasion be it said even Messrs. Wilford, Skley, Statham, Kellett, Seddon, and -Ngafa-voted with the Labour Party against Mr. J&assey. However, it is sufficient to know that whoever voted for the second reading voted for vyage reductions, and this is what you did. Therefore, my charge is sustained. Had the Labour Party's action, been upheld and the second reading defeated, there would have been no reductions, and Whatever money was heeded wpilld have been got by means 6f graduated income taxation, which would have reached all the highlypaid , men without touching the rank and file.

To proceed! further with your Jettei, you make pretence to moralise some-, what by saying that, misrepresentation and ignorance is futile. I agree -vvitii you, outwhymot be consistent and set an example for others? You take mc back to 1919, and deliberately misrepresent matters on the occasion mentioned in . referring New Plymouth members to .their new-found frleru!fw. I trust that they will soon see the folly of their present faith and transfer It to those new-found friends.

You say that Mr. Holland voted against Sir j'odeph V, r ard"s motion iv reduce the General Manager's salary by £1. Hansard 185, quoted by yoii ; .: shows Mr. Holland as moving that the ; General Manager's "salary be reduced; by £1000— this to emphasise the need for better treatment for the Second. Division men. You voted against it,; as did all the Liberals, with the ex-; ception of Messrs. Wilford and Jen-, nings. It. was 'after this that Sir" Joseph Ward moved , the reduction of| the Assistant General Manager's salary by £.1, and In reading Hansard 185, I "found the Labour Party's action explained in voting against this camouflage motion. There- is no need for mc to detail it, as you know it quite •well or should do In conclusion, sir, I must say that I have nothing to retract from my previous statements, and as you have seen fit to carry this correspondence on through, the New Plymouth Branch, I am sending them a copy of this letter for' their benefit.—Yours faithfully, THOMAS STANLEY, Branch Secretary.

FINIS. Augrust 23, 1022. E. Fogden', Esu., New Plymouth. Dear Comrade,—Further to my letter of the 10th inst., I have much pleasure In fo'rwardng a copy oJ; the letter I have sent to Mr. S. G. Smith, M.P., which I think you will admit, after giving it your careful considera-tion,-"thai it substantiates the statements made to you in my first letter. —Yours fraternally, TOM STANLEY, Branch Secretary.