THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. FIELD

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2795, 13 June 1916, Page 6

THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. FIELD

Sir,—While few people who know Mr. Field. 11. 11,I 1 , for Nelson, will be likely to take seriously his soinowhat remarkable outburst. against "The Maoriland Worker"—to which outburst your paper has devoted some considerable spacestill, because everybody does not know ilr. Field, thero are one or two phases of his attack that require attention. In the iirst place, Mr. Field seems to doubt that "Tiie Maoriland Worker" is entitled t9 speak for Labour in the matter of conscription. Well, so far as Wellington is concerned, that doubt can easily bo set at rest. I have written to ilr. I'ield to suggest that he shall meet me belore ihe members of the local trade unions and political Labour bodies, he to present the case for the present Bill in an hour's speech, I to state the case against the Bill in three-quarters of an hour, and he to have 15 minutes to reply. \ either by show of hands or secret ballot, whichever Mr. Field profers—to be taken at the conclusion of the addresses. 1 am content to abide by the decision. Mr. Field seems to have overlooked the fact that the attitude of "Tho Maoriland Worker" on conscription has not been challenged by a single trade union in New Zealand. » + ¥ i , e - 1 £- has resorte d to the lawyers trick or Jilting paragraphs and sentences troiii their context for the purpose of making a case,' and he has not even hesitated to quote the. sentiments of writers ol letters to the editor and independent contributors and charge them up as the paper's opinion. With equal reason, lio might have charged that every "Letter •to the Lditor" printed, in The Dominion reflected the Editor's opinions! However, we may pass over Mr. Field's idiosyncrasies and obsessions; but his extraordinary inaccuracies are a more serious matter. Your'report makes him say (and it is not likely that he has been misrepresented): i Ihere is a German Labour oreanisa.tion called the 1.W.W., with headquarters in Berlin. It may be said that this association has a branch in Berlin, just as it has branches in Russia and France. It may have its- tentacles in Russia and prance, as it has its .tentacles here in New Zealand, but the head of the oclo- ! pus is in Berlin."

It goes without saying that Mr. Field's object was to mferentially connect "The Worker with the 1.W.W., although tbf'r w $ m £- ch < ss schoolboy knows that "Ti w , nas iierer failed to denounce A fundamental i i.. IS repudiation of political action, and Mr. Field is perfectly well aware that "The policy is essentially "political actionist." . Mr. Fields statement that the I.W W. is a trerman organisation,: with headquarters m Berlin, hasn't even the merit S f containing the elements of truth. Tho .\\. was born in America in 1905. It mis never even had a branch in Berlin or any other part of Germany. Neither t 1 a ?y benches in Russia and France. J.n Australian has an organisation that is moderate »iii numbers, but exceedingly f. c V ■ I "? t know of any branch r? 1 o ea . , I ? d - Its hostility to tho political Socialists is very marked, and more especially towards the Social Democrats or Germany. About a year ago '} "'"' er ln "Solidarity"—the central I.H.W. paper, published in America, and now refused admission, to New Zealand by the Massey-Ward Government—set tovth that th© smashing of Germany as an independent nationality was to be welcomed if it would also mean crushing out of existence the Social Democratic Party. The Syndicalist (Trade Union! movoment in Franco was in existence long years beforo the I.W.W. was thought of. Might I suggest to .Mr. Field that he read up Dr. Levine's "Labour Movement in France, John Graham Brooks's American Syndicalism—the I.W TO " G. H. D. Cole's "World of Labour," and' other works written' around these movements.

■ lieldI ield ,^ s ? : „l!. iacie ti' 9 statement m the House that Ross's Magazine" was refused transmission through the Australian post office 'because of its seditious utterances:" This statement, like the allegation of "the I.W.W with headquarters in Berlin," is epiite contrary to fact. "Boss's" was refused carriage by Postmastor-Genbral Webster for the ostensible reason, that the editor had discussed a religious subject in a way tiiat the Postmaster-General professed to disapprove of. Mr. Field was so exceedingly reckless with his charges in the House—whijh institution,_ by the way. may easily bis i converted into a coward's castle by any member whose lack of moral fibre constrains him to shirk a fight outside of its sheltering walls—that it is a fair question to ask: Did Mr. .Field know that the statements I have quoted above were unfounded \wheri he made them, or did he make them in good faith,® Did he dig them out of the uninformed empti. ness of his own mind? The fact remains that the statements were grossly wide of -the facts, and whether they were made in deliberation or in ignorance, thnt a man holding a responsible, public position should be capable of so carelessly handling the truth is surely sufficient to put him out of court as a reliable witness. As counsel, for any plaintiff,/ Mr. Field himself would nroniptly reject a witness whose credibility rested on a similar shaky foundation.—l am, etc., H. E. HOLLAND, Editor, "The Maoriland Worker."