UNITY CONGRESS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1792, 3 July 1913, Page 4

UNITY CONGRESS.

THE SECOND DAY.

CHIEF QUESTION SETTLED.

DUAL AIM FAVOURED.

(POLITICAL & INDUSTRIAL,

i The Unity Congress resumed its sittings at St. Petdr's Schoolroom, Qhliznee Street, yesterday : morning, the Hon. J. Itigg presiding. The following. notices ofmot'ion w«ne tabled:— < Air. Solomon (Cooks', and Waiters' Union, Wellington): "That in the' opinion of this body State control is the satisfactory. solution of the liquor traffic." Mr. Shorter ( Auckland y Waterside Workers' Union)': "That thip congress, representing 50,000 of the workers of New Zealand, emphatically protests against 'the Government allowing tlie registration, under the Industrial; Conciliation and Arbitration Act, of unioiis whose rules contain provisions enabling them to debar any persons from obtaining employment solely because of thoir opinions. Such provisions are unjust (in the extreme, and contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Act, and the congress calk upon the Government to o/nnul the registration of (or to refuse registration to) any union whose rules contain such a provision." Mr. Hack (Railrray Workers' Union): "That this congresp rule as to what standing (if any) .those delegates have who represent industrial unions, when those unions have not adopted the basis of unity proposals subject to any amendments this congress may adopt." ' Mr. Young (by permission of the conference) moved that no new business I>3 taken Wore tlu£ consideration of the platforms and constitution had been finally dealt'Wit'h. Mr. Eosser Seconded .the resolution. Mr. Bucklei: moved, and' Mr. . Hampton seconded, | an , amendment, that only business consiidered urgent by the chairman should,be taken before the platform and constitution are finally dealt witli. On division the voting was: For tho motion, 233; for. the amendment, 78. ; ' Industrial Reprssentation. . Mr. M'Lannan withdrew his motion of the previous day: "That only delegates representing industrial unions at this congress be allowed to vote on tho consideration of the constitution of the United Federation of Labour." He explained that he withdrew the resolution in order to avoid any waste of time, in discussing it at that juncture. i One or Two Organisations? : Mr. W. T„ Mills moved: "That for the purpose of establishing a united labour movement, in New Zealand, there shall be two orghnisations, one industrial and one political." He said that if a personal explanation devolved upon anyone it dia •upon him, seeing that he was responsible for the proposal that there should be ono organisation for both purposes. He admitted tfhat he had been responsible for tho idea 'that there should bo one organisation. ■ He still held that tho idea was logical, b.fat he found that, under present conditiorp, it was impossible. Every man must have, his ideal-and fight, to gain that idenl, but a man who. was unwilling to agrco to anything'short of .his ideals would never do anything to- accomplish them, and he would;' possibly • wreck all movement in that difefctidri. (Applau£e.) Theru had'been a Considerable mision•oeption about the programme which he had 'drafted for the United Labour Party. Many, persons had tho idea-that, in the | consideration of industrial matters under ] thaf, platform, tho employing class would I .sit, side by side ! ,wtth the wage-«arning cla/is, to. determine wages arid 'conditions' • of; work. That never, was the position.Hi) had done his best to make thjo meaning of the scheme of the United Labour Party perfectly plain, and had spent two Vears endeavouring to explain it to audiences in all parts of tho country, but it Ua3 now elear;to him that the|paltform /had not been understood. The January ''conference had agreed upoh two organiSa- j tnons which should be closely, related to | <fach other, and yet which would allow the wage-earners alone to settle all those questions involving their hours of labour and conditions of employment: If anyone ever had the idea that he wished i an employer sho\ild sit lit a conference representing wage workers in a dispute between employer and employed, lie absolutely repudiated it. He had never stood for that. He wanted to deliver himself from that misunderstanding by snpportiog the organisation under which) that misunderstanding ■ could never arise !again. He believed that pveryons. was .present at' the conference, because he was! 'interested in solidifying tho I/abour move- 1 nient of New Zealand. (Cheers.). If any 'were present for any other purpose they would form such a small minority that the congress could afford to regard them as a negligible quantity. The Unity Committee, was anxious to discuss every single problerti that could arise. They were gathered not to fight questions, but to settle them: not! to afjsumo unity by tak'ing action in general terms!; but to deifinitely settle matters so that there could be no question ns to wherfc they would stand in the future. They we.ro there to build one political organisation that would take the policeman's club aw.iv from the enemy of labour;.that would take the sons of Labour out of the capitalistic gaol; an organisation that could go un-. corrupted by political factions, with a programme 'that could win the majority control of tlve political power of New Zealand. (Cheers.) They could unite in two organisations. Let thtim drop their differences and get together and fight tho battle they wanted to win. (Prolonged cheerinz.) Two Organisation! Necessary. Mr. Scott Bennett seconded the resolution. He wished to the fact that it was absolutely necessary.to have two organisations. They wanted two. organisations, firstly, because t|\o confer-, ence was a labour conference.- 'It. was' representative of tho men and 'women who wero daily exploited by tho. monopolists, who now controlled the machinery of production. If they had only on" organisation for political and' industrial purposes, it would 'fa,tolly fie the hands of the wage-earners of this country. They would have a mixed "Lib.-Lab." organisation that would fcri absolutely.of no use to the workers, a/id would be of value only to those men; who were desirous of crawling to Fajliiwient on the backs of the workers. (Atrplauf".) There was. another point of vu/w. Tf tho congress, did not care to havn two distinct organisations. one .functioning- upon the industrial and another uooil the political field, what would hanoen? ;Safeguard as they would they would findj that in their industrial councils they whuld have men influencing them whos»J material interests wero absolutely oppoifd to-tho interests of the. working class. That particular influence would be brorlqlit to bear , without th« slightest doubt/in the world. (Apnlau«o.V He stood for /political action only, because he that bv nioltiii" u c e of the political machine they, would be able to grasp/the policeman's'club from th« policenmij'.s hands and prevent power being used to opnre« the working class when thev v/ere- battling for b°tt»r conditions. Ho/wever. he regarded the industrial orghnisation a* far and nwiv the most important. Until thp work'ng class had sufficient s/mse to ?">. loeethor nt the point of nroduction they would never have. 1 sufficient sen=e to organise nnon soundl lines politically. (Annlaii«e.) If they brlilt up a political pn-tv. that would so liri tho eountrv with loud wnrpvip= to en fch votes, the wli"le of fieir effort* would end in liera'i'e th"v> \vn= within? at fh" back of such n "olitical organisation to ">-tnin it. Tliev would not: hive w'nit lh»v should vp. that economic background that made a political movement possible. (Cheers.) Mr. M'jdHison moved and Mr. .Trnnff seconded the adjournment of the debate until tho platform hnd been discussed. The motion for adjournment wai lost.

tho workers should defend themselves. The necessity for defencc was not confined to the trades' union people only. In tho past the fight was between the tvoikci's and their immediate employer; to-day that was not the position. There was a great organisation to-day, a political organisation which represented monopoly and privilege. That organisation had control of the Parliament of New Zealand to-day, and he asked whose fault that was? Was it the fault of the monopolists? No, it was the fault of the worker. 3 . Parliament without direct Labour representation was very dangerous for the workers, of the country. With respect to the proposal to have two organisations, he would point out the experience of the Labour movement in Australia. There it had been found that so long as strikes were going on in the country a political Labour party could not be maintained. A political Labour party could only ba maintained by calling to their ranks all the useful people who »;ere being oppressed by the monopolists. They should place political action in the forefront of the battle. (Applause.) Mr. Bloodworth said that personally lie favoured au industrial organisation alone, but the 1400 carpenters whom, ho represented had declared in favour of tlie two organisations. Mr. H. E. Holland supported the proposal for the two organisations. lie considered that one organisation only would lead to the position of employer and employee taking part in industrial matters that affected the wage-workers. Such an organisation would be impossible, for the material interests of the. omp!oyer must of necessity bo different to those of the wage workers. If they had only one organisation they would have to shut employers out of it altogether, and that might result in shutting out an employer with revolutionary ideas. He was not in favour of allowing them to join the industrial organisation, but they could 'come into the political organisation. He believed iu political' and industrial organisation. Mr. Veitch had alluded to the Australian Labour party. "Why had the Australian Labour Political Party failed?" They had failed in Australia because the "Labour Party" in Australia had ceased to bo a Labour party. Gaoling' Strikers. The Labour party, in gaoling strikers and boys, had pursued the same tactics as the other capitalistic parties, and if it were proposed to establish a similar party here, he could only say "To hell with the Labour party." (Cheers.) The mistake made by the Australian Labour Party was that the party, instead of living up to the revolutionary attitude of the world's working class, had started to administer the politics from a capitalistic standpoint. They could not say the workers should nqt strike, nor take a thou-sand-a-year Judge to'say what wages the workers should get. That was not a working-class action, (Applause.) The Hon. J. T. Paul said that he believed in the United Labour Party's constitution to-day as firmly a£ he did when he first-endorsed it. At the same time, he was perfectly willing to accept the decision of the conference. He contended that the industrial orgaLi-.ation was of equal importance to the political organisation. What was the'use of saying. that Labour should only fight with one arm? Let them fight with both arms. They must not forget that if they went out of the conference with an illogical constitution they would go down. Their constitution would have to stand the keenest analysis. .. . Mr. Hunter supported the motion. Messrs. M'Manus and Warren (Otago Amalgamated Carpenters) and Mr. Wriglit supported the two organisation schemes. Pugilistic Similes by Mr. Payne, M.P. Mr. Payne, M.P., said that, in fighting parlance, with political and industrial action as separate organisations, they had a ."dirty left" to deal out with, and a "dirty right" to follow it up with. They must regard the two branches as two arms belonging to the one body, to be used for the benefit of that body. They could have no successful political organisation without, a solid industrial organisation. . (Applause.), He considered that the industrial unions should alone take part in the industrial organisation, and w-hen that was completed then .they, could, aliow men who wore hot" wage-earners into, the political organisation. Mr. T. Long said Jie believed in political action, and v ho believed in industrial action, but he did not'believe, as apparently some of those'who had spoken did, that the industrial should be allowed to overshadow the, political. He instanced what political action had done for the .women and the miners of this country. Mr. Tregear—"One. Organisation Impossible." i Mr. Tregear, who, on rising, was greetled with prolonged cheers, said that he | had sat tor months with others to coneider the platform outlined by Mr. Mills, and they,' were forced to the .conclusion that Mr. Mills's idea of one organisation was impossible. The Committee of Workers had been forced to the conclusion that it would be best to make two constitutions. In an eloquent speech, marked with feeling, and amidst tho most enthusiastic chcering, Mr. Tregear implored those present to grasp that splendid opportunity of forming a solid, united Labour party .that, conld industrially and politically bring about, a sound improvement, in the-affairs'of tho workers of this country. " Mr. Kennedy opposed the resolution. Ho considered (hat if the advocates of two organisations were logical in their contention that only workers should be ! allowed to take part in the industrial organisation, then it was equally logical that only workers should be allowed to take part in the political organisation. Mr. Jones favoured a strong industrial organisation. "A "Syndicalist Tiner." Mr. E. J. Carey said he wished to warn his political friends that if they were not careful with their votes they - would be riding inside a syndicalist tiger. The political programme that was : brought down was a sham—(cries of "No! no!" and dissent) —and was only brought down to be made subject to the industrial organisation. He hoped his political friends would vote his way. The legislation of this country was full of mining legislation. He contended that the workers had gained more by political action than they could ever hope to gain by industrial action. The only thing that the industrial action of the past had done was to bring discredit upon the organisation. (Cries of "No! no!") Mr. Dowgray illustrated how' the miners of Scotland had gained benefits by industrial rather than by political action. Messrs. Glass and Stove supported the motion. The Hon. G. Fowlds. The Hon. Geo. Fowlds said perhaps they would liko to hear a word from the exploiting class, but he believed-his desire to benefit labour was as sincere as that of anyone there. Under tho present system one had either to be an exploiter or one of tho exploited. He personally did not wish to bclonjj to an industrial organisation, but he wished to belong to a Labour political organisation, becauso he had entirely lost faith in the orthodox political parties. lie considered that if they formed suoli a political party apart from the industrial party, they could get the support of a great many people who were desirous of making conditions better. They had to fight land monopoly, and he believed the workers considered that this question of land monopoly was one of the greatest evils they had to combat. There had been two widely different schools of thought, one which believed in. industrial action and another which believed in political action. If they could combine both these sections, he believed thev would inaugurate a party that industrially and politically could control the affairs of New Zealand. (Applause.) Mr. E. J. Howard supported the resoluMr. M. J. Reardon opposed the motion, because he believed they ought to make political action part and parcel of their industrial action. Mr. Hickey said that so far as the resolution was concerned, at all the meetings that had been addressed throughout. New Zealand, not one had passed a resolution against the proposals, and up to that time not one resolution Inid been sent in tvuinst: the decisions of the Unity League.Messrs.- Eagle, liosser, Kerr, and M'Kenzie supported the resolution. The motion being put, the voting wps:— For two organisations, 206; for one organisation, 50.