CLASS LINES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8263, 28 October 1912, Page 4

CLASS LINES

What ia all the excitement over the people who ax© arraying class against class?' l . \VHb axe the people who are doing this? Why should people be divided into classes. Why should they not all be included in one great brotherhood, permitting individual liberty and opportunity and ready to help one another at all times?

This is the highest ideal certainty. We have net attained it because a few people are taking away the product ot the labor of many. The workers arc suffering for want of the things which their own hands have made and the idlers are in possession of the product of the labor of others. This divides society into classes. The class which is being robbed of the product of its labor objects to the organisation of society which permits those who do no work to take the product of the labor and skill of the workers. If everybody would go to work the class divisions which are rending society would disappear. A perfectly simple solution I All idlers should act upon it at onco; but will they? Oh, no I There ore traditions, conventions, customs to be broken down, laws to bo changed and new ideals to be fixed in the minds of the people. Those who control the product of

labor by virtue of their ownership of the tools of production also own the political power of the State. They will uot give up their powers and privileges. The workers must take their own. This makes the class struggle. Who is to blame ? What is the use of talking about who is to blame? Class lines are drawn by the social conditions. Xo political economist nor agitator could draw them if he would. When the workers all see the line they will get together on the right tide. Then they will refuse to produce tor anyone but themselves. When this happens there will be a stampede to get on tire workers’ side of the line. When all have crossed over and joined tho working class the class lines wifi' be obliterated. Those who are worried about that lino between classes ought to think about this. MR MILLS V. FEDERATON To the Editor “N.Z. Times.” Sir, —Mr Mills is tho most unfair opponent it has been my lot to meet, do is a master of words and uses meuiods that are not generally resorted to by an educated manl Tor instance !a tnis morning's issue (Thursday; no says: “He (Mr Howard) might tell u» if, when he himseli hud been a candidate for every office and had been successfully defeated for them all, he retired Horn the room and immediately made war upon tho old organisation.” Can I pin Mr Mills to that otatempnt? If it is not true, is it a fair question? Suppose I was to ask Mr Mills if he ever got away with any organisation’s funds in America, would mat bo a fair way of attacking the United Labor Party, or even Mr Mills? Suppose the above statement is true and X was a defeated candidate every. time I stood for office, what is that to do with tho federation? But it is not true, and that makes the thing worse. During the time 1 was a member of the Trades Councils Federation, I only stood once for any office and was beaten by a better man (Mr Breen, of Dunedin). I attended two or three conferences after that, and never once tried to break that organisation up. I certainly opposed certain alterations, but in all cases voted as instructed by the council I represented. I am a past president of the Canterbury Trades Council, and was only defeated for one office for which I was a candidate! Now does that cut any ice? Mr Mills says further; “Mr Howard and the federation for which he speaks would do well to give attention. to answering these questions; there are fourteen of them, and no answer has vyet been made to any of them, etc.” Now, why should wo answer Mr Mills’s questions? Who is Mr Mills, any way, that ho should be allowed to put questions? Will Mr Mills answer all the questions we can put to him? For instance, is it true that a prominent member of the United Labor Party fought another member of the Labor Party in Auckland quite recently for a breach of award, and the one man was a worker and the other an employer? All Mr Mills’s questions are on a par with that one. Let me take another of his questions— (2): “Why did tho men who created this organisation first seek to control the Trades Councils Federation, and failing to do so disrupt the old organisation and establish a minority faction as an independent national body?” That is not true, and the Trades Council Conference reports for the past eight years will prove it is not true) I am the only one of the present executive or the last year’s executive. that was ever on the Trades Councils Conferences. Again, question (3): “If the federation believes in majority rule, why did the Waihi branch of the Thames Miners’ Union secede from that union in order to adopt a policy not approved .by the union to which it formerly belonged?” Mr Mills says to this Mr Howard says nothing. Well, for a good reason. Mr Howard does not know. It’s about eight years ago since tho Waihi Union seceded from the Thames Union. It’s about four years ago. since this federation was. formed! Now in what way is the federation to blame for something someone did four years before the federation was born? Nearly all the questions put by Mr Mills are of the same character. He puts fourteen questions and he makes out I answered theml Mr Mills says: “To this Mr Howard says: Nothing!” I never used the word “nothing” in any of my replies! Let me ask Mr Mills a question, and will he answer straight? It’s this: Did the Christchurch Painters take a secret ballot re joining his Unity Party, or was it settled at a meeting with only six members present? Have any of the trades .councils taken a secret ballot before joining his scheme, or was it settled at small meetings that would not total one hundred if they were all meeting as one? I shall insist upon these questions being answered through the page controlled by Mr Mills or the United Labor Party 1 And finally, should we not both bo engaged in trying to heal the breach rather than widening it, and if not why not? Therefore—l am, CtC ” E. J. HOWARD. Wellington, October 24th.