AN EXPOSURE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8481, 16 July 1913, Page 3

AN EXPOSURE

THE UNITY CONGRESS ITS CREATION, COMPOSITION, AND CONCLUSIONS. (By D. McLaren.) From January •to July, 19X3, the Unity Committee, led by Mr W. T. Mills, worked to create the congress on lines of cunning tricks and deception. They planned to commit the delegates to a “basis of unity” (preamble and all) which had never been properly discussed. It was intended by them to have the "basis” taken as being already adopted, but this little move did not succeed. • The constitutions placed before the congress had not been considered by the unions ana other bodies represented, and delegates, therefore, could not honestly claim to put the views of their sovera. bodies on these matters, seeing that the bodies represented never had these constitutions before them. The assertion of the Unity Committee “that ah bodies had adopted the basis of unity” when considered in relation to tho fact of the congress rejecting the “preamble” exposes the whole trick, ft was intended that delegates should assemble bound to a “basis” that was never analysed and the unions be committed to constitutions they had never seen. Now the wicked Wellington men are hated for having exposed this contemptible fraud and utter pretence of unity. Some delegates had seen the constitutions long before the congress met, whilst others only got their copies after the congress had started proceedings. This gathering was bossed by an executive from the Federation of Labour; its members gagged continuously by the closure when arguments failed to suit the revolutionists, and the reports of what transpired were distorted In the most disgraceful manner. THE COMPOSITION. The strong note of the Revolutionary crowd at this congress was “We are the Industrialiste.” We the actual wage-earners. We are the producers of all wealth, we are, we ore, we ore. Note this! The executives present consisted of thirty-nine delegates, of whom six are industrial operatives. The Unity committee of twelve contained not one industrial operative. The congress consisted of delegates who represented large unions, those who represented small bodies and _ a number who represented no distinct body _of any kind. It was not a representation of workers, but a representation of views, and as £SOO was spent in collecting the views the Unity committee wanted, the compositions was largely what had been paid for. CONCLUSIONS. The real meaning of the conclusions ainved at by this

congress will not dawn upon many who were present until these conclusions are tried in practice. The mam result was the adoption of words that bear double meanings. It is clear that Industrial Unionism was adopted and that it is left to R. Semple and W. T. Mills to interpret what that means. There can be no doubt of it being decided that “The United Federation of Labour will employ the strike weapon local,- general or national” ; that the national executive can call out any union without its members being consulted, and that the constitutions destroy many labour bodies now existing. in order to create what Is purely chimerical—the grand army of Revolution. It was stated that this congress consisted of 400 delegates. The longer it sat the smaller it became, and the official report shows that the constitution was adopted on the vote' of 175 delegates. The conclusion of the matter is that this congress has drawn a line between Revolutionists and Constitutionalists, and as time goes on there will be few left an the fence.

SOME PLAIN QUESTIONS REQUIRING PLAIN ANSWERS. Arising out of the business of the recently held Unity Congress there are certain plain questions that ought to be plainly answered by the officers of the United Federation of Labour and of the Social Democratic party. The questions concern every unionist in New Zealand, and everyone has a right to have the points involved in these questions cleared up at once. These are the questions: (1) Does the United, Federation ot Labour constitution, if adopted, destroy existing Trades and Labour Coun. cils ? (2) Does the same constitution, if adopted, abolish distinct trades federations, such as the Drivers’ Federation, the moulders’, the shearers’, and others P

(3) Under -above constitution, if adopted, can the national executive call out unions in support of a strike without the individual members of such unions being consulted? (4) Does the proposed United Federation of Labour stand for a policy of industrial unionism,? (5) Is there anything to distinguish this industrial unionism from the industrial unionism of the I.W.W. of America ? (6) Is this policy of the federation one of direct action? (7) Does the policy of direct action in its ultimate purpose involve the taking of the industry by the workers engaged in it without purchase and without legal sanction? (S) Is clause lof the objects of the federation the same in intention and effect as the “ preamble ” which was defeated, and, if not, in what do they differ ? (9) Is the Social Democratic party established to carry out the t same principles and policy in the field of politics as the Federation of Labour stands for in the industrial field? (10) Will the Social Democratic party at all times require its representatives to uphold the enforcement ot the law whether they agree with the law or not? (11) Does the Social Democratic party intend by “ the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange ” that such “ means” shall become the property of soc-ety, or that these means shall be socialised on the lines that the workers in each particular industry shall own the industry in which they work? (12) What rights of personal judgment and action are allowed to the individual worker under the scheme ot the two constitutions adopted?