THE LABOURERS' UNION TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17325, 27 May 1918, Page 2

THE LABOURERS' UNION TO THE EDITOR.

Sib, —Mr Ormrod must learn that, just as the lack of discipline in the Russian army with its desertions, lack of co-opera-tion, indecision, and divided control made the leadership of the Kussian army unable to defend Russia, so in like manner desertions and lack of co-operation would undermine the army of labour here, and would nullify the work of men like Mr -M'Allen. If the officials of Ihe union have ignored Mr Ormrod's letters it is because they believe unionists should criticise the doings of the union at its meetings, and not in the press. My only reason for writing is to defend the' union, because I believe the organisations of Labour are tiie hope of the world, and because I love the comrades in it, whose devotion and eternal vigilance have safeguarded what small measure of liberty and progress we have gained and havie kept the unions intact In my last letter I told how Mr M'Allen's only son was serving at the front. Since then the papers report that this son is missing. I am sure that all genuine unionists who know Mr M'Allen's unselfish record for the cause of Labour, and his good work on the Otago Patriotic l3ociety, will unite in heartfelt expressions of sympathy with both Mr and Mb M'Allen, and hope they may have strength to bear this added trial.—l am, etc., J. E. MacManus. [Wo have excised a portion 01 tne auove letter in wtucii our correspondent quotes Ulr Uimrotl as having saiu ne was suent aoout lUr Jd.'Alien's xaoour record. A reierenoe to Mr Urnirod a letter will show that tnis was an incorrect rtpr<-Si.iitation ol it. — iliu. O.U.T.] SlB, —In reply, to "Labourer" let me say mat he i» trying by technicality and misrepresentation to ucny tne truth. lie aslis it there is any sense in proposing a resolution withdrawing lrom athLauon, wnen a union is not atluiated. My notice ot motion was as follows: —"'lhat we, the utago General Labourers Union, withdraw cur alhliition from tho Utago Labour Representation Committee, so long as that body is aililiated to the New Zealand Labour party; and so long us the lust-named body has on its programme the repeal ot the Military Service Act." I hope your readers will notice the technicality. If rny motion was not to withdraw lrom a body to which we were affiliated, why did the officials allow me to give notice of motion according to Rule 35; and to allow my notice to lie on the table a month? Then, when the meeting to discuss my motion took place, my friends moved and seconded and passed, a resolution, that the standing orders bo suspended, and that my motion be taken first. "Labourer" says I wasted the time of the meeting in explaining the evils of the Noat Zealand Labour party. That is quite true 60 far as . the anti-con-senptionist section of the meeting was concerted. I believe i.-ow. that it is wasting time ever trying to persuyde them; that i* the Empire is in need oP-men. He states that I claimed the right to speak again after the motion was seconded. On the occasion I mentioned the motion was not seconded —as, through the intervention of the secretary, I was deprived of tho right tj finish my speech on the motion. If these men keep trying to side-track or mislead as to what actually did take place at that meeting, I challenge Mr Kendall, Mr M'Allen, or Mr Delahunty to come out on a Labour platform in public, and I will tell them to their faces in plainer language than you will allow me to use, that they did deliberately deprive me of the right of free speech. I hope that next time Labourer " ventures forth with his "facts" he will have the manliness to sign his name. Your readers will see why they deprived me of the right of free speech, as my supporters and myself beat them on tho vote. As to the standing orders, they had a i'.ckk! cruirle that :f thov allowed my motion to go to tho vote, as it ought to have done, they wo.ild have been beat. And tho Labourers' Union would have not been affiliated to-day to the Otago L.R.C., nor indirectly to the New Zealand Labour party. —I am, etc., E. Ormrod. St. Kilda, May 25. rWe th'nk tlrs matter has been sufficiently discussed.—Ed. O.D.T.]