MR MILLS V. FEDERATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8258, 22 October 1912, Page 11

MR MILLS V. FEDERATION

To the Editor "N.Z. Tunes.” Sir, —As one of the above organisation, I wish to enter my protest against the continuous cowardly statements made on the Labor Page of the Wellington “Times." Cowardly, because they are not true. Again cowardly because the writer of them knows they are not true. Cowardly because we have not the same space or opportunity to reply to them, and again cowardly because we have been always ready and willing to mee: the writer of them on the public platform, where each has the same cnanccs, and wo have publicly challenged the writer to there prove his case and leave the people to judge. The platform against the press, and we are willing to abide by the verdict of that great democracy that Mr Mills (assuming he is the writer) talks so much about. In Saturday's issuo ho says: “The following questions are submitted and a detailed answer demanded, and the questions will

lx* repeated and the demand enforced throughout New Zealand,” and then certain threats. May I say that 1 for one am pic pared to meet Mr Mills on every niatlonn in New Zealand, and to prove tint his questions convey suggestions that arc* not true, and to reply to those questionc in detail. In this morning's ts-itio anothe rstatement is made that is not true. In fact it is full of misstaternents—but let me deal with otto ; "The trades unions in .all the centres were ordered to co-operato to furnish money, to give support in an industrial dispute the avowed purpose of which was to destrov arbitration:” Again I say that that” statement is not true. We have appro.udied unions to Jay our case before our class and have left our class to judge 11.-,, and they have done so to the tune of a,2:i,tnK/ right in the middle of winter, •and still going strong. Tho dispute at SVaild and Reefion was not brought .about with tho avowed object or purpose of de--li eying .arbitration. The strike was !■*ought about to prevent a minority of the engine-drivers dragging a majority of the engine-drivers back under an Act of Parliament that another Act of Parliament has given them the right to say whether they shall accept or otherwise. Now, again, to put it more clearly, the Federation of Labor had, and lias, the majoritv of the engine-drivers and firemen of Wailii in fhe federation. Is that clear? The majority of these* men aro still in our organisation. Is democratic rule, rule by majority or rule by minority? Now, the principle at stake is that if a minority of tho engiuo-drivers can drag a majority of engine-drivers back into conditions they do not want, then a minority of tho miners can drag a majority of the miners back underconditions they don't want. This is what has hapi>encd at Kaitangata. A secret agreement made by a minority has been forced on the majority, and has given away things the miners won years ago. Matters in connection with the differences between fhe Federation of Labor and the United Labor Party again aro misstated. I was for a number of years a representative on tho Trades Councils Conferences in this country, and know their history, therefore know what lam talking about. As a fact there is no United Labor Party! And the Federation of Labor never refused to be represented in tho conference which created the United Labor Party! Tho Federation of Labor has never by word or deed prevented representatives from being heard by any part or section of its organisation, rather has it welcomed representatives, because, believing ■ the United Labor Party is wrong, then the only way to prove they are wrong is by tho rank and file knowing all there is to know about them. The same thing applies to tho Federation Of Labor, therefore wo have held hundreds of meetings at which wo challenge Mr Mills and all comers to prove wo aro wrong.—l am, etc., E. J. HOWARD.

Wellington .October 21st. [Mr Howard is bluffing. Ho has never asked for space to reply to tho editor of the Labor Page, and lias never been refused it. Mr .Mills' experience in the debate with Mr Scott-Bcnnett (when he —Mills —was persistently heckled birowdies on both sides of tho Town Hall auditorium) was an indication that a public debate is no fair test of tho merits of this question. Tho strike at Waihi was not brought about "to prevent a minority of the engine-drivers dragging a majority of engine-drivers back under an Act of Parliament." It was brought about by tho impulsive action of a leader of tho federation, an action that was warmly condemned by the majority of tho executive of tho federation at its meeting held at Wellington immediately afterwards. This action was typical of tho federation’s method—strike first and negotiate as a last resort. Mill o ward boasts of the -623,000 taken out of the pockets of the workers, not to build up an organisation with, but to fritter away in fighting a battle which the federation executive condemned at the outset, but was led by vanity to ratify and endorse. This reckless waste of the money of the workers is a thing to grieve about not to exult over. The weakness of ’tho federation is that it has no platform and no policy. It is leading the splendid men and women who aro prepared *o make sacrifices for the Labor cause into a maelstrom of chaos and dis. aster. The United Labor Party has a definite constructive policy; it has a written constitution which provides for progress along constitutional lines with the strike as an ultimate not a preliminary resource, and then only after the fullest consideration and consultation of those affected by means of a secret ballot. The federation’s tactics are for tearing down. The United Labor Party’s policy is for building up. That is why the workers who read and think prefer the lead of Mills, while those who imagine that shouting is all that is required follow the extravagant propaganda of Semple and Howard.—Ed. "N.Z.T."]