THE LABOUR PARTY AND MR MOSS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22612, 2 July 1935, Page 5

THE LABOUR PARTY AND MR MOSS

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —I am sorry that Mr MacManus should have let his feelings override his judgment. To get abusive will not get him far. To accuse me of desiring him to become a Judas is absurd.- My desire is to save him and the workers from their so-called friends. It is rather unfortunate for Mr MacManus that he should state that I had been a tool. I can assure him my hands are quite clean, and that I possess a clear conscience. Seeing that there has been a great amount of dissatisfaction both in Dunedin and in many other parts of New Zealand about the selection ballots, and

the actions of the National Executive of the party, it may be as well to refresh the minds of workers and let them know a little of the past. As Mr MacManus has launched a personal attack on me I shall just let the workers see how the unseen hand behind the party machine works. Now, for my first crime. As a member of the committee formed to raise funds for the Returned Soldiers’ Memorial, I said—speaking to a motion that a military pageant be used as a means to raise funds: “As a representative of the workers I would support the motion provided the pageant was need for educational purposes. If it was to be used for an extension of ‘military propaganda, then I must oppose it.' This statement was referred to in the columns of your paper. It was taken exception to by the left wing element of the party. This section claimed that the interpretation of the party plank meant the total abolition of militarism in all forms. After much discussion 1 paid a visit to Wellington—not at the workers' expense —and interviewed Mr Brindle. Mr Nash and Mr Fraser, all members of the executive. I asked for a definition of the defence plank. The only answer it was possible to get was “ We will discuss it at the conference.” My next crime, aa your columns will prove, was to say that the late leader of the party, Mr H. E. Holland, was in error in saying that the law of inheritance was not affected by the land policy of the party. Again, the left wing element took exception and demanded that I should make a public apology to the leader. This I refused to do, as my statement was the’ truth. Later on, the left wing element was busy trying to influence the result of the ballot which was to take place for the 1925 elections. In spite of its efforts I was selected by the members of the Dunedin West electorate by a majority of 60 votes over the chairman. Mr S. Caspar. Seeing this element was beaten at this point, my nomination was endorsed by the local body and later by the National Executive. The unseen hand got to work and, as I refused to make an apology through the press, a motion was proposed that I be asked to withdraw mv candidature from the Dunedin West electorate. Mr Semple was brought down from Wellington and was allowed to enter into the discussion. He gave us a few opinions on the traitors who had been in the Australian Labour Movement and also emphasised the necessity of clearing the New Zealand movement of traitors. Unfortunately for the workers, the traitors have not yet been cleared out, but have grown in numbers. Thus my reason for writing. I want the workers to be able to see who they are. It will be seen that although the local members had supported my nomination by' a majority of 66 and the National Executive had also endorsed it, the unseen hand was sufficiently strong to cause a great amount of trouble. Now, to come to 1928. I was again approached to allow myself to be nominated. This I consented to, as the reason for. my refusal to abide by the previous decision of the executive had been cleared up. Mr H. B. Holland and Mr Lee had stated in Parliament that the party stood against compulsory militarism and for a voluntary system. Mr Nash had writ“With every alteration in laws affecting ownership, some person or other must.be affected. This is. of course, true, and it seems absurd to argue any further with regard to the matter.” It will be seen that there was no reason why I should not allow myself to be nominated. Again, my nomination was approved by the local members, but again the unseen hand got to work. The National Executive refused to endorse my nomination and allow my name to go to ballot. The reasons given were: (1) That I had stood against Labour at the last municipal elections as an Independent, 1927; (2) my refusal to carry out the provisions of the constitution in 1925. Members will remember that Labour ’ had only six candidates for the council elections in 1927. Twelve members were required. No. 1 reason will be seen, therefore, to be nonsense. The second reason given by the executive would have meant that I ad-, mitted that Mr H. E. Holland was correct and that I had been speaking contrary to the truth. It will be seen that the' wishes of the local members were again defeated. It matters not what the ability of a person is, or what the electors in a constituency wish, these few persons called the National Executive, overrule them. The nominating of candidates and the taking of Hkllot were shown for the second time to be only a cloak to blind the workers. 'Mr MacManus will now see that I was in the same box as he himself occupies. If the wishes of the local members of the party were to be considered it could only be done by my standing other than as an official candidate. This I did, as is well known. My reasons for doing so are also recorded in the columns of the press. The soundness of my actions were endorsed and shown to be justified by the result of the election. It showed that it was not Mr Moss who had divided the vote and put Mr Downie Stewart back, but the National Executive supported by Mr Harrison, one of the “ modern track blazers ” who had been prepared to support party wishes before principle, before the right of the . local members to select their representative. Mr MacManus will perhaps know that the modern “track blazer-” is slightly different from himself when on the track. The modern blazer mostly uses ■ a motor cycle or car “ instead of having sore feet, the consequence of wearing old hoots. His clerical work is generally done by a lady assistant in offices warmed by electric heaters. Mr MacManus will understand that the conditions are much more comfortable than they were in the old shed or barn of his day. Also, only . a few pounds’ extra burden is placed on the worker. It is far easier on the track blazer and it upholds the Labour principle of payment for service rendered.

If Mr MacManus will, just think over the above for a short while he may see a little light and understand why the Labour Party does not want' the old “ track blazer.” Now, once again let me suggest to my old political comrade that he will be doing a great service to the workers if he will try to destroy the cancer that has developed in the Labour movement. This might perhaps necessitate his standing for his old constituency, Dunedin South, against an official Labour candidate, but it does not necessitate his sinking _ his principles. Let me whisper in his ear, that Mr Bernard Shaw says something to the effect: That Labour men when they get into Parliament very often cease to be Labour men. Methinks Mr Jones, M.P., is a very obliging and nice gentleman, but ho has ceased to be a “ real Labour man.” What thinks my friend, Mr MacManus? In conclusion, let me inform my old comrade that a friend of the worker known by any other name than that of official Labour can be just as good and as sweet. As stated in my previous letter, I have had cause to knotv how little our local members of Parliament and trade union secretaries have done for the workers. I can assure Mr MacManus that they will be conspicuous by their silence in this controversy. I hope it will not be necessary in the future to refer to myself and the party. So far as I am ■concerned, I am convinced that the workers can expect very little from the present leaders. In conclusion, let me say to Mr MacManus that if Fooled thou must be, though .wisest of the wise. Then be the fool of virtue, not of vice. This to. be carried out will necessitate his being independent of the party. One wonders if he has the strength.—l am, etc., C. M. Moss. N.E. Valley, June 9. -