MR FIELD AND THE MINERS.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 29, Issue 37, 15 May 1917, Page 5

MR FIELD AND THE MINERS.

ADDRESS AT GOLDEN BAR.

Mr T A. H. Field, M.P., at the invitation of the Wnkamarina Miners Union, gave an address at Golden Bar, Ueen Creek, on Saturday evening (reports the “Colonist”)-Over forty persons were present, and it was stated that the attendance was large and representative considering the present population of the community. Mr R. S. Hcdgland, president of the union, occupied the chair. Except for occasional remarks by an individual* who was stated not to be a member of the Miners’ Union, Mr Field, who spoke for nearly two hours, was accorded a very atten- ‘ five hearing, and at the conclusion of his address he answered a largo number of questions. Having been briefly introduced by the chairman, Mr Field, in opening, said that, although ho had only polled ten votes at Deep Creek, his services were as much at the call of the people there as if ho had obtained a big majority. He never forgot his friends, and he tried to do all he could for his opponents. Ho considered a man very small-minded if he showed feeling because people voted, against him. (Hear, hear.) Ho had been invited by the union to give an address “on any political subject,”but he considered that at the present time every political subject began and ended with the war. He believed when the war -was over there would be a tremendous upheaval in the social system, and that things would be changed, but everything depended upon which side won. Two great principles w ere fighting. Germany thought might was right, and wo thought just the opposite. However, it must have occurred to them that there was some reason for the war. Some people said it was a capitalists’ war, but it all depended upon the meaning of the term capitalist. Every person who saved £lO was a capitalist. It was true that many firms had made money during the war, and he quoted figures showing the increased profits made by several British munition manufacturers; also by one of the brewing companies. The munition works, Mr Field pointed out, had been taken over by the Government, but not the breweries. He did not think they could say that the brewers caused the war. No country was less prepared for war than Britain, and it was madness on her part not to be prepared after the warnings she had had. The first warning was in .1006, when war was only averted by the newly elected Liberal Government intimating that Britain would support France in the event of her being attacked. The second warning was in 1908, when it was realised that the more Britain reduced her expenditure ou armaments the more Germany increased hers. The third warning ivas in 1910, w-hen Germany showed her contempt for the intelligence, courage, and honour of British statesmen. The fourth warning was when what was known as the Agadir incident occurred,_ when the German cruiser Panther put in a sudden appearance at a port in Morocco. That was a challenge to France, and war was only -stayed because Germany found that Britain was prepared to support France. The fifth warning occurred in 1012, when Lord Haldane visited Germany on behalf of the British Government, to try and remove misunderstandings between the two countries. Lord Haldane ought never to have gone to Germany, because two days before he got there the Reichstag passed heavy votes for the army and navy. The Kaiser told Lord Haldane that Germany would consider reducing her naval programme only if Britain would agree to remain neutral in any war Germany might begin. The sixth warning was in 1913, when the German Government passed a tremendous vote for the army and navy. Yet Britain did nothing. The British people did not want to believe that war was so near. If Britain had been prepared thousands of lives might have been saved. Lord Roberts, said Mr Field, took heed of the warnings, and his speeches set England by the ears, but he was boycotted by a large section of the Press. ‘ The Nation ’ ’ called one of his speeches diabolical, and said he should be punished. Events, however, had proved that Lord Roberts was right. Lord Roberts said also that his conviction was that some form of national service was the only salvation of the nation and the Empire. The real cause was Germany’s fixed determination to overthrow the other nations, including Britain, and dominate the world. The writings of the German publicists showed that their doctrine was might is right. Bcrnhardi taught that it was the duty of Germany to conquer the world. It was a war of ideals— liberty and tyranny, and between civilisation and barbarism, An individual at this stage asked Mr Field if he did not think the people should have been consulted before plunging into the war. Mr Field said Britain in the present war had no choice. If the war was stopped she would simply be conquered. Continuing, Mr Field said there were at the present time two classes at the front —the men who loved fighting, and those who fought because they believed it was their duty. The latter were fighting against the German ideals and for their own principles of liberty. Germany, said Mr Field, had made a science of cruelty, and she thought she could frighten the world. For that reason a holy war had been proclaimed against Germany. In reply to an interjection, Mr Field said he hoped the German military pajtv would bo so beaten that war would bo impossible for a considerable time, or never recur at all. A voice interjected that all nations committed atrocities. Mr Field said that was perfectly true, but never before in the history of the world had any nation been guilty of such scientific cruelty and frightfulness, which was done for the purpose of intimidating neutral countries. The only way to win the war, said Mr Field,"was by providing men, and there were only two ways of getting men—bv voluntary service and by national service. -'The English system ol recruiting was called voluntary, but Lord Roberts called it the conscription of hunger and misery. Many anti-mili-tarists loved peace, and hated violence as a deadly sin, but they were quite prepared to leave other people to sin ou their behalf. A democracy which assorted the right of manhood suffrage

while denying the duty of manhood service was living in a fool’s paradise. Some people said they would be as well off under German rule, but that was nonsense. In Germany they did not have the Magna Charta to protect them; everything in Germany was at the will of the Kaiser and the military class. ■ „ . Mr Field then spoke of the gallant spirit of our boys at the front, and said the duty of those at home must be to do everything they could to assist them. (Applause.) . It was very instructive, continued Mr Field, to consider how Italy camo into the war. She was a member of the Triple Alliance, and was governed by the worst form of government it was possible to have. However, the people rose in millions, disowned their official spokesman, and demanded that Italy should enter the war against .Germany. The latter’s treachery was then discovered. Waggonloads of beer for Tripoli were found to contain arms and munitions for the tribes Italy was fighting, and' the rifles were branded with French names. Then Italy was not satisfied with the treatment of Italians in Turkey, and Turkey gave Italy assurances of her friendship; yet at the same time Enver Bey took £200,000 to the Senussi to help them to clean out the Italians. The sinking of tho Lusitania completed the disillusionment of Italy. Mr Field then dealt at some length with the “Maoriland Worker,” and said that an anti-military and antipatriotic campaign was carried on through its columns. Mr Field said ho had boon challenged by the editor to debate the Conscription Bill, but’ he had declined. The “Worker” said the daily press suppressed Labour members’ speeches, but ho noticed that the editor in the same issue only printed part of his (Mr Field’s) reply to the challenge. The labour unrest at the present time was believed bv Mr Field to be due to disappointment The I.W.W. had been called the children of disappointment. People came forward time after time with some political and social nostrum to regenerate tho world, and met with failure after failure. The policy of the I.W.W. was destructive, not constructive, and they were disgusted with the progress made. 1.W.W.-ism was a revolutionary movement, and, like every new revolutionary movement, it attracted two classes —the most unselfish and courageous on the one hand and the self-seeking semi-criminal on the other. On the I.W.W. cards it was set out that Labour produced all wealth, and that the wealth produced belonged to the producer. Whether that was true or not depended upon what they called labour. If it included all the energy, thought, ability, invention, management —which were labour —then it was right. If it meant only manual labour, then the claim was false. I.W.W. leaders said that labour included much more, but they had better not say too much about it. Another said, “We give our people as much light as we think safe. ’ ’ For trade unionists to object to compulsion was illogical—trade unionism was based ou compulsion—compulsion to join the union, compulsion to pay the minimum wage, compulsion to keep the hours of labour, etc. —yet they objected to tho Conscription Act. Then people objected to tho War Regulations; but what about strike regulations'? When a strike occurred, did not the executive draw up strike regulations? And if an individual did not obey the regulations was he boycotted and insulted? They could not say such a thing was right for the union and wrong for New Zealand. War regulations were necessary, and sacrifices had to be made at tho present time to gain liberty in the future. (Applause.) An individual at the back of the hall interrupted Mr Field, and asked if ho did not think the people should have been allowed the “privilege of voting on tho war question. ’ ’ Mr Field said he had already answered the question, but as a general principle he believed in tho referendum because it gave people an opportunity of expressing their opinion. In conclusion, Mr Field said ho did not believe in internationalism. “Patriotism,” he said, “begins at home, extends to the town or district we live in, and embraces our Empire, and if our hearts arc big enough takes in the World —the brotherhood of man. ’ ’ They had in New Zealand men who called themselves Internationalists, but their patriotism began internationally and ended there. He (Mr Field) said right was greater than might, and justice more than power. Their ideas might not be the same, but he was sure they were all trying to do their best to improve the condition of things generally. Mr Field resumed his seat amidst applause, Mr A. Wickcs said that out of an average of 69 men employed at the mines there, 53 had volunteered for service. The miners were prepared to make further sacrifices if other classes did the same. Did Mr Field think they would? Mr Field said he believed every class was willing to make sacrifices to win the war, and he instanced what the women were doing in this direction. In reply to Mr Smith, Mr Field said he thought the War Regulations were needed, but he would not say they could not bo improved. Mr Smith asked Mr Field how ho justified the War Regulations if he did not believe in might being right. Mr Field said that when a \trike was on the members of the union did not have the right to express an opinion; they were expected to support the union; and so it was with the war, and War Regulations were necessary. ’Mr Smith elucidated a question by Mr Wickcs, asking if a man guilty of sedition should not be treated the same as a murderer —that was to say, be tried by jury, which was denied under the War Regulations. Mr Field said he supported the general principle of War Regulations during the time of war. Mr Smith declared it was the War Regulations that were causing the unrest.

Mr Field was asked if ho had had the opportunity would he have voted tor a referendum on the Conscription Act.

A voice: Do you believe in the righof recall?

Mr Field said he had not studied it. If he went into Parliament to support a Government and found he could not subscribe to something that was intro-

duccd he would vote against it. He would then go to his constituents and send in his resignation. A questioner asked Mr Field if ho said Australians had disgraced themselves for ever by voting against conscription. The speaker said he was one of a family of four brothers, three of whom were at the front. They voted against conscription, and he asked if they had disgraced themselves. Mr Field said that Australia as a whole had disgraced herself. There were not sufficient reinforcements for the trenches, and regiments had had to bo withdrawn because the men were so exhausted.

A voice: Why doesn’t Canada adopt conscription? Mr Field: I believe it will before long. America did at once. Conscription was the only fair way of militaryservice.

Mr Field was asked if he did not think the 112,000 men who had volunteered should be taken first. Mr Field: And let the shirkers and the cowards stand back. A lot of those who voluntered were married with families, and while there were single men available it was not their place to go. A voice: Take the single man because he is cheaper. Mr Field: He is cheaper because ho 1 has no wife and children dependent upon him. Tho death or maiming of single men does not bring the same extent of misery on women and children as the death of married men. It is not a question of money at all. A young man said his mother lived in Australia, and was dependent upon him, yet ho was not allowed to leaye tho country. He had married brothers who were at the war. Mr Field said if his ease was as represented, ho had no doubt if he applied to the Minister he would be allowed to go to his mother. In reply to Mr'Smith, Mr Field said he voted against putting off the Parliamentary elections. In reply to another question, Mr Field said he did not think when a man engaged in an essential industry was exempted from service, provided he remained in his then employment, that it meant he must continue to work for the same employer. He must keep in tho same class of employment. It would not bo fair otherwise.

These wore all the questions, and, on the motion o'f Mr O’Keefe, seconded by Mr Wickcs, a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Field for his able and lucid address was carried by acclamation.

A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded tho meeting.