The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, JAN. 26, 1912. DIVIDED LABOUR.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14657, 26 January 1912, Page 4

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, JAN. 26, 1912. DIVIDED LABOUR.

The name of the !New Zealand Labour Party is misleading. The socialist Sew Zealand Federation of Labour already challenges its strength and influence. The first body relies on the ballot box and Parliamentary representation to gain for labour what it wants} the second body takes "industrial solidarity" for its watch word> and the weapon with_ which it menaces the community as the German Emperor taps his sword* is the combined strike. Both. parties can show some successes for their policy. _ The ballot box has been responsible for foutf new Labour members in the House, and "industrial solidarity" has wrung -valuable con* cessions for the waterside work* ers and other classes of labours, But the advocates of political cc* tioii in the interests of labour l are themselves divided, and A* ready there are rumours that a new political Labour organisa-* lion may be formed. Messrs Veitch, Robertson, and Payne, Labour members for Wanganui,, I Otaki, and Grey Lynn respectively, will not acknowledge than a very modified allegiance to> the organisation which asserts a Dominion role. They have neves signed its pledge, and they aspire to be free agents, rather than the servants of a Labour executive in "Wellington. Mr Payne lias said that he has "no connect tiou" with the New Zealand La< hour Party, which he states con* sists of a comparatively small seotion of unionists- "Numbers of unionists," he declared not long ago, "are Federation of Labour men, but numbers of them don't belong to either the Federation of Labour or to the Labour Party. An attempt has been made to class the four Labour members as representatives of what is known as the Labour Party, but as I have been elected by Federation of Labour niea and other unionists not attached' to the La» ibour Party, I pointed Ott4 {• ua>

mistakabls iorrus that .[ must remain an Indopcndeut Labour representative." To which MrllcLaren replied, after admitting that Mr Payne owed allegiance io no Labour body:—"''lt is" p.itent to mo that the Labour organisations of this country will require more allegiance from an individual than the mere abr i;;it .statement that he is a Labour man, end unless .an individual is prepared to recognise Hie decisions of the Labour Party's ovganisaiion, to us, at any rate, lie can lot be regarded as a Labour tr.i'ml ;r a I an." It is clear, from n "Wangunui tologram which we published yesterday, _ that Messrs Robertson and Voitch are in the sauio position as Mr Payno, It is stated that an attempt was made by the executive in Wellington prior to the election to force the party's pledge on Mr Voitch. but ho refused to sio/n it. The fact is interesting, because it has been Stated that if Mr Massey should offer Mi- Veitch the portfolio of Labour, this pledge would bo an obstacle to his' accepting it, Messrs Payne and Robertson Vere not even asked to take the pledge. The separation of these tnembors from the official labour body has been widened by the resentment of the Labour" Party's executive at their attitude and by the comments of the Party's official journal in Wellington. Wo are told that "there is talk of starting a new political Labour movement, whose constitution shall leave out all mention of pledge, and givo local branches a freer hand in tho selection of i candidates and the conduct of elections." Mr Veitch, in a telegram which wo publish to-day, 6ays ho has no knowledge of this movement, but Mr McLaren admits a new defect in the party's solidarity, in stating, that the Labour Party in Wellington doss not represent tho views of the Labour Party as a whole. Messrs Veitch, Payne, and Robertson liavo all a special claim to independence, since they were elected fts much by Opposition as by Labour votes. But even if the Labour members had been returned to Parliament solely by the support of Labour voters who were also members of the New Zealand Labour Party, though they would then owe a great deal of deferenco to that body we should regret to seo a class of representatives in the New Zealand Legislature who would bo prevented from using any discretion of their own, but forced to voto on overy important question which arose according to the resolutions of an outside oaucus, which might not even havo taken the trouble to follow the arguments of tho debate. That is tho system which ha 3 developed in Australia, and it is a system which can only do injury, in the long run, to representative institutions.