UNITY CONGRESS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1793, 4 July 1913, Page 3

UNITY CONGRESS.

DEBATE GROWS WARM. SOCIALIST IDEA REJECTED. BY CLOSE MAJORITY. " ULTIMATUM OF WARFARE." The Unity Congress resumed its sittings at St. Peter's Schoolroom yesterday' morning, tho Hon. J. Itigg presiding. A resolution that the name of tho organisation b? "The.United Federation of Labour was adopted. An amendment by ilr. Reardon, seconded by Mr. Knowles, that the word "United" be struck out was lost.

Hie first business was the continuation of the discussion on the preamble of the constitution, the adoption of which had been moved by Mr. H; E. Holland (Westport Socialist party). The preamble reads as follows The working-class and the employing-class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are to be found among millions of working people, and the few, who make nip the employing class, have all the good things - of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organise as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system. We find that the centring of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope' with the ever-growing . power of tho employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers . in the same industry, thereby helping to defeat one another in wage wars. These conditions can bo changed and the. interest of the working-class upheld' only by an organisation formed in such a way that all its members in any pne'industry, or in all industries, if necessary, cease work whenever a constitutionally authorised strike is . 011 in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all. Instead of the conservative motto: "A fair day's wages for a fair day's work," qur watchword is: "Abolition of the wa'je system." It is the historic mission of the workingclass to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organised, /not only for the every-day struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall nave been overthrown. By organising industrially wo are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

A Class War. Mr. Holland stated that it was useless to deny, that there was a.class wqr, and between the- two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the earth took possession of the earth and the machin-: cry of production and abolished the wage system. He. considered that .the preariible was the best that the workers of New Zealand could adopt, as it directly 6tated, once for all, that, on the industrial field, there could be nothing in common between the- wage-earning class and those who exploited the working-class. Mr. P. C. Webb (Unity Congress Committee) seconded the resolution. He said that the time had arrived in the history of the working-class movement, when a definite declaration of their position should be made, and the preamble made the position, of both tho employing class and the working class clear and decided. Mr. Withy (Dominion Executive United Labour Party) moved the substitution of the'-words "exploiting class" for the words "employing clas3." Ho contended that many employers were in a worse position than their employees. To adopt the preamble as it stood might' create unnecessary friction 'between the small employer and tho party. The real fight of tho Labour Party should be against tho land monopolists. Ho regarded himself as ono of the exploiting class, yet he had devoted his time and intellect to fighting for the working classes. Mr. Stevenson (Hastings U.L.P.) seconded the amendment. He spoke at length on tho dangers of land monopoly, and agreed with Mr. Withy that this was the real question that had (o be fought/ Mr. D. J. Conchie (Wanganui Labourers) supported tho resolution.

"Exploiting the Workers." Mr. Way (Auckland Coopers) said that, in the discussion on tlio previous day, it had been distinctly argued by Mr. Mills and others that tho small employers, and others who were not wage-earners, should take no part in the counsels of the United Federation of Labour. Now they saw that, with questionable taste, confessed members of the exploiting class were moving . an amendment to a resolution moved by members of the wage-earninj; class. Tlio contention that, on the industrial plane, the small employers and their employees had common interests'was wrong. These delegates of unions which had' engaged in arbitration fights would perhaps remember that, 011 every occasion, the small employer ranked with the large employer, sido by side, to combat the efforts of tile wage-workers to secure better wages and conditions. The small employer in the Arbitration Court declared a class war. He agreed many employers were personally much better even than .some of the men they employed. That' was not the point. Good, bad, or indifferent tlieir interests lay in exploiting' the wagewOrkers, and the conference must make the line of demarcation between the employing class and the wage-earning class as clear and distinct as possible. Mr'. I'arlano (Wellington Drivers' liiiion) supported the amendment. The employing cluss mid the working class had this in common—they were both exploited by the landlord monopolist. Mr. Mack (Railway bervants) supported the amendment, not because lie'wanted to. cause disunion, but because ho considered the words "employing class" were not clear enough. He agreed that the greatest exploiters were the land monopolists. What they wanted in this country was a strike against the monopoly of commodities. If they would refuse to handle butter and meat and other commodities until they were brought down to reasonable prices it would be a more effective method than striking for higher wages. '

Mr. Reid (Federated Engine-drivers) opposed both motion and amendment. Ho contended that Clause 6 of the objects which said "The United Federation will always act with the end in view of securing to the workers the full product of their labour," was all that was required. Mr. Home (United Committee, Christchurch) supported the motion. "Ultimatum of Warfare." Mr. Hogg (Masterton) took the opportunity of saying that the intellectual capacities of the conference compelled him to say that he had never attended a finer"gathering. He, however, asked them, before they precipitated a war between employer "and employed, to think it over. He spoke of the land monopolists, the absentee, and those who were exploiting the people of New Zealand, as a blight on New Zealand, destroying the people as effectively as the blight destroyed an apple tree in his garden. (Applause.) Mr. M'Carthy (Dunodin U.L.P.) said that he was an employer of labour, and 110 agreed with the resolution. Mr. Hamilton (Oliristcliurch Labourers) said that the supporters of the amendment hfltl contended that there were many liard working employers. So there were. They were, working hard "working the employees." Ho supported the resolution. Mr. Hall (Tiniaru Waterside Workers) favoured the adoption of the preamble. Mr. D. ti. Sullivan (Chrjstehnrch) said that he did not quarrel with the principles embodied in the preamble, but he considered that they should not be embodied in the platform. He favoured the extension of Clause G to set for the workci the full product of his labour br

securing the social ownership of the land and means of production. The Rev. 11. C. Money (Christchurch) supported tho preamble as it stood. Ho said that it was necessary to make the . position so clear that an individual, however excellent ho might be, would be forced to declare cither that he was in favour of the present system, or against, it.. Tho preamblo was an ultimatum of warfare. Mr. Brown (Napier Labourers) objected to any preamble at all. Mr. H. Ikrafield (Auckland Carpenters) supported the proposition. They must recognise distinctly that there must be a, strict lino of demarcation between the employing class and the working class. Mr. Fitzsimmons (Waterside Workers) supported the preamble in its entirety. Mr. Hunan, M.l'. (Invercargill Bootmakers' Union) said: Let them sink their differences on a preface and get to the plonks of their platform. He urged them not to overload their platform, but to adopt such reasonable measures ay would appeal to the largest number. If they did that the Labour flag would soon wave all over New Zealand.^ Mr. J. Campbell (Wellington Tailors' Union) also spoke against the preamble. Mr. J. Moffat (State Mines), and Mr. Mellington (Waikato Miners) strongly supported the preamble as it stood. "Dunno Where 'e Are." Mr. Carter (Auckland Tramways) supported the amendment. Ho was against tho preamble because he was not a Socialist. He considered that it was - wrong to contend that the employers and "their employees had nothing in common. Mr. R. Rose (Feilding Socialist party) pointed out that the land exploiters were not the only exploiters. ' They had also tho robbers of interest and profit. He supported the preamble. Mr. W. H. Perry (Otago Labourers') opposed the whole of the preamble. ' Mr. Voyee (Lyttelton Wharf Labourers) said that even if they regarded the preamble as only an educational medium it was necessary. The man who said he represented a union and in the same breath declared he was not a Socialist, was like the man in the song "He Dunno Where J e Are." "A Damnable Preamble." At the afternoon session Mr. Hindmarsh (Wellington Trades and Labour Council) said that in his opinion- the preamble should have read "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common as to surplus value." They were liko the Jew, the Buddhist, and the Christian who sat down to dinner and quarrelled so much ,over grace that they forEot to partake' of a sumptuous dinner. Thero were some people who could not digest the preamble. Let them postpone it to the end or wipe it. out altogether rather than have a breach. The preamblo was not the essential part. It was the programme that was the essential part. ■Mr. Pender (Land Values .League) supported the amendment. A compromise, such as ■ suggested by the amendment, would enable the political advocates to go forth, and justify the decisions of the conference. Mr. Valintino (Auckland Drivers) said that he would be perfectly willing to substituto tho new "exploiter" for "employer" if the Employers' Association would strike out the word "employer" and name it the Exploiters' Association. They were there to fight the Employers' Association. (Applause.) Mr. Sharrock (Auckland Painters') said that those in tho building trades knew that tho small employer was a greater jerry-builder than the large employer, and was a greater menace £o the. working class than many of tho large employers. He was there as a trades unionist and a Socialist, and if they were going to crawl ■from their definite position let them burst up at once. Mr. Price (Masterton branch Socialist party), Mr. H. R. Huntly (Foxton Socialist party), Mr. Agar (Lyttelton Stevedores'), and Mr. Townsend (New Zealand Shearers') supported the resolution. The question, on being put to tho voting, was:—For the motion, 207; for the amendment, 115. Mr. M. J. Reardon, with tho permission of the conference, then moved: "That, in the opinion of this conference, no preamble is necessary." Mr. M'Mamis (Duuedin) seconded tho resolution The contention of the mover and seconder that Clause •}, in its reference to strikes, was liable to bring about trouble, was contradicted by tho opponents of the resolution. During the debate Mr. Mills said that some of the delegates considered they wanted an organisation which would suit the employers and employees. That would not bo done. Tho congress was goi.ng to create an organisation that would repre-' sent the working class, and the working class alone. It was to be a revolutionary fighting movement, and no other movement would do. Mr. M'Cullougli opposed the preamble as being too revolutionary. Mr. M'Laren said that all he could say about tho preamble was that it was "a damnable preamble," and designed by revolutionaries, and could not be defended on moral grounds. The Strike Proposition. Mr. Wilson (president of the Amalgamated Railway Servioe) said lie could assure the congress that his union would never tolerate anything of a Unity proposal which placed the strike proposition in. the forefront of the-platform. Mr. P. Fraser (Unity Congress Committee) said that not one speaker had criticised one singlo clause of the preamble. With respect to the strike if they admitted the workers' right to strike, all the preamble set out was the best way to strike. Mr. Carey said that if the preamble w;as not dropped there would not be unity. (Cries of dissent.) Mr. Long (Auckland Hotel and Restaurant Employers') said that it was 'unity they wanted. Unity they must have. He would say, "To hell with the preamble," if it prevented unity. Mr. Hickey (Unity Congress Committee) said whether the preamble was carried or not lip was not going to run away like a child. He was going to stop to get unity, if unity was possible. He had read tho "agony column" of a Wellington paper, and 1 Mr. M'Laren had there shown that he was opposed to unity altogether. Ho did not want strikes, but if they did strike they wished to make it effective. Mr. M'Laren denied Air. Hickey's assertion that ho had come to the congress opposed to unity, but he had not come there to accept unity at any price. The Hon. J. T. Paul said if the deletion of the preamble would hamper the organisation in any way he could understand it. Suchi deletion would not hamper the congress in any way, but, on the contrary, would be most effective to realise unity. \ Mr. Maddison (Wellington Carpenters'), while agreeing to the preamble, was prepared to subjugate his ideas for the purposes of unity. Decision on the Preamble. The resolution being put, the voting was: For no preamble, 173; for a preamble, 161.' After the resolution had been put, Mr. Mills called for 1 three cheers for unity, and tho call was twice responded to. Tile congress adjourned till 9.30 this morning.