AN IMPUDENT MANIFESTO.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1923, 4 December 1913, Page 6

AN IMPUDENT MANIFESTO.

The public of New Zealand, when thc.v recover from the first shock arising out of the impudent manner in which the Hon. W. M. Hughes, President of the Australian Labour Conference, arrogates to himself and his fellow-unionists in Australia the right to dictate to .New Zealand how it shall deal with the Ued Federation, will perhaps derive a little amusement out of the situation. 31 n. Hughes apparently regards us as u lot of very ignorant people, incapable of managing our own affairs, and ready to submit to tho guidance of the Labour organisations of' New South Wales. Because the Citizens' Defence Committee ventured- to communicate with tho Labour Conference in Sydney with a view to preventing it being misled as to the facts of the position here, the Conference, per medium of a lengthy cablegram, obviously designed to intimidate the public, takes on itself the right to tell the Defence Committee in effect that it must stultify itself, and submit to the wishes of the Bed Fcderaton in the matter of settling the dispute. "As to the Federation of Labour," declares these Australian dictators, "it contains thousands of the best workmen in New Zealand, and we cannot consent to their destruction." No one, of course, wants to destroy any of these workmen—no one has ever suggested anything of the, kind. It suits Mu. Hughes and his associates, however, to mnks it appear that it is the destruction of the workmen that is being aimed at. whereas they know quite well that it is the destruction of the Federation of Labour, the most evil organisation of the kind this country has ever known, that is at stake. Me. Hughes's message, is not worth discussing in detail—the manner in which ho brushes aside or ignores the really vital issues makes it useless to do so, even if the Australian Labour organisation had any right to attempt to dictate, to the people of New Zealand concerning a matter of this nature. There arc really only two or three points that deserve, any attention at all. The first of these is that Mi?. Hughes, on behalf of the Conference, states'that they, the Australian workers, "believe in the settlement of disputes bv arbitration." So do the Citizens' Farmers' and Employers' Defence Committee, and the majority of the people of New Zealand. But the Red Federation, whose cause these Australian unionists are championing, does not. Then again, these professing arbitrationists in _ Australia, who are attempting to interfere in the scttleme'nt of this trouble, are advocating a course which __ is tantamount to sacrificing their fcl-low-ayhitrationisis in New Zealand for the sake of the anti-arbitration-ists of the Red Federation. Another point they make is that if tlie disput is submitted to arbitration they j (the Australian unionists) pledge themselves to loyally abide by the decision, and vecommmend and expect the Reel Federation to_ do likewise. ;It is impossible to believe, in view of the very full reports published in the Sydney newspapers, that the j i Australian Labour unionists arc in ' ignorance of the "to Hell with agreements" policy of the Red Federation. It is, therefore, arrant humbug on their part to profess to believe that even if the Defence Committee were to turn traitors to the public, and agree to this proposition, that it would have any lasting effect. As a matter of fact, the philanthropic gentlemen in Australia who have come forward to instruct us how to manage our own business do not appear to be able to control their own followers even in the matter of agreements which they arrive at amongst themselves, The decision arrived at as- tho result of their conference was, according to Mu. Hughes, to boycott only the vessels trading to New Zealand, not the companies owning the vessels. Yet we are told that.this agreement was broken almost immediately it was arrived at', and all the Union Steam Ship Company's vessels trading between Sydney and other ports are being boycotted. And the simple, confiding citizens and employers of Now Zealand who know the Red Federation, _in face of this and the recognised views of that organisation, arc told to place themselves at the mercy of the promises and professions of such men. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people of New Zealand that such a proposition should have been made. So long us the Red Federation exists it stands as a constant menace to the industrial peace and prosperity of the country. That is the plain fact, and the people of New Zealand now recognise it. There are thousands of Labour unionists who realise that it is as great a peril to their welfare as it is to the general progress of the trade and business of the country. It would he suicidal to-now take any step which would, be likely t.i give (lie Federation a new lease of life. It has declared war against the community, it Ims been soundly beaten, and in the interests of legitimate trades unionism, and of the public at large, it and its evil methods should be stamped out of existence so far as this country is concerned. If tiie Labour unionists of Australia choose to ally themselves with an organisation which has bitterly attacked Labour unionism and its leaders in Australia, that is their business. They can cause some inconvenience to the travelling public and some loss to the shipping companies affected, but our trade with Australia is not so great that the loss v,'i!l compel the people of New Zealand to place themselves under the dictation of the Labour unions of Australia, or submit to the continuance of tho tyranny of the Red Federation.