The Dominion. THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1916. AN APOLOGIST FOR THE FEDERATION OF LABOUR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2828, 20 July 1916, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1916. AN APOLOGIST FOR THE FEDERATION OF LABOUR

The Hon. J. T. Paul sought yesterday to attack The Dominion and tho Christchurch. Press from 1 his place in Parliament, but being out of order was unable to give vent in this way to his . feelings. We are very pleased, however, to open our columns to the honourable gentleman, and olsewhero we -afford him the opportunity of securing tho publicity ho desires. He states that wo were unfair in our criticism of the attitude of tho Federation of Labour towards the war, and what is of more concern to us, ho asserts that this paper "was deliberately unfair in its'treatment of Labour." Mk. Paul, like some other Labour leaders, apparently finds that it suits bis purpose at times to arrogate to the Federation of Labour the right to represent and speak for tho whole working class movement in New Zealand. If he had troubled to read our article at all carefully, and had wished to treat our comments fairly, he would have seen iiyit our maiu contention was that the Federation of Labour, and niore especially the little, coterie that dominates its affairs, did not truly represent tho sentiments of Labour unionists in Now Zealand in connection with the war. Our criticism wag not directed at "Labour," but at a section of Labour-Socialist extremists. AVc mad© ourselves quite s clear on this point, but porh'a-ps we had better refresh Mb. Paul's memory by quoting two extracts from the article which lie states is "deliberately unfair to Labour":

This West Coast body of workers (wo said, referring to the GrejTUOutlL Port Waterside Workers' Union) has mado it clear beyond, all possibility of mistake that it is utterly out of sympathy with tho attitude which has been adopted by the Federation of Labour in connection with tho war* The Grey mouth watersidora liavo replied with an unqualified "No" to the striko proposal, and also resolved to put any further communications from tho Federation iu tho wastepaper basket, which is a very sound and sauo decision. The Groymouth Union has undoubtedly given forcible expression to the sentiments of the great majority of Labour unionists in New Zealand. Taken as a whole they aro British through and through—the war has proved that if any proof was required—and they realise that it would bo sheer madness to do anything to hamper the Emuiro in the tremendous fight for right and froedoni in whiilh it is engaged. .'. Thousands of working chy&s families aro represented at tho front, and participation in any movement that would weaken the lighting power of tho Empire would be deliberate treachery to their own kith and kin. ... It is a healthy sign, tho indication that the Labour unionists as a whole are not in sympathy with thoso who would secU to promote internal sftil'o and divido tho nation at a time wlion iLs wholo oncrgios should bo concentrated on the struggle with our enemies abroad.

Mk- Paul, with the assistance to his memory which the extracts wo bavo quoted above should" afford, will perhaps on reconsideration admit that his suggestion that our criticism was directed at Labour generally is utterly unfounded. As a matter of fact, as wo have already stated, our attitude was exactly the opposite to that which lie states — wo were applauding the sentiments and actions of the great bulk of the working community in connection with the war, and condemning tho views and conduct of the Labourfciocialist extremists. We can hardly believe that Mr. Paul is so dull as not to have perceived this. , On the question of the general strike proposal, it is probably the case that Mr. Paul knows a good deal more of the inner workings and plans of the Federation of Labour than ourselves. At its recent conference, to which Mr. Paul was a delegate, the Federation excluded tho wholo of the Press of tho country, with .the exception of the representative of the Maorilwnd Worker, which is the official organ of the Federation. It is not unnatural in tho circumstances that we should turn to this official organ for information as to what transpired at the conference—and wo find it in abundance. In the issue of July 12 of tho journal mentioned is a detailed report of happenings at the conference, including the report of a committee specially sot up to draft a resolution on the conscription question. This committee recommended, amongst other things:

. lvo V l ' 8 ® a " unions to tako a j? i 0 ofl following questions—it the clauses of tho Bill are put into operation, are you in favour of the Tvork-ci-9 tuKinp- a week's holiday as a protest? This was a _ mild way of suggesting a week s strike, and after discussion, so, the official report runs, the word first" was added before protest, so as to make it clear that the step proposed would be merely a "first protest." Presumably other protests were to follow. But this way of handling the question apparently was not strong enough for some of those present, and an amendment was moved as follows: —

that ths question on the ballot paper read j Are you in favour of a general strike as a means of preventing the eiiioreement of the Military Servico Act? 'This was seconded and carried."— Wc quote the actual words of the official report-, which adds:-"It wAs resolved that the National Execu,tive be cmpowored to issue flic ballot papers at their discretion." This is plain enough. The amendment was carried, and a, further instruction in connection with it as well, xhe so facts were before us when wo _ expressed our views on the attitude of the . Federation of Labour. The official report of the closing day's proceedings at. the conference wero not available when we wrote, and they will not be available until the current week's issue of the official organ of the Federation is circulated to-day. Will Mr. Paul venture to challenge the accuracy of the official report published in the official 'journal of his organisation? Wo'think not, ho-wovcr much he may explain away. He says our criticism of the Pcdcvatiou is par-J ticularly unpardonable, because the report of tho sittings of tho confer- J cnee published by U6 contains no reference to any proposal relating to a general strike. That is a very amusing statement for Mr. Paul to make. Mr. Paul knows that it is also arrant humbug. Ho knows pci'iectly well that the roport he refers to was ono supplied by the federation of Labour, the reporters of the daily Press being excluded fiom the meeting. The Federation gives us what it suits it to publish, and Mr. Paul apparently wants us to base our comments not on what actually transpired, but on what tho Federation chooses to tell us transpired. Wo prefer in the circumstances to take the detailed official report published in the Federation's own official journal. If wc understand Mr. Paul correctly, lie- states that the strike proposal was only a committee recommendation, and was not adopted by the conference. There is~; nothing in tho report to show this; on tho contrary tho official record clearly indicates that tho committed recommended a plebscite on the question of taking a "week's holiday" by way of protest against compulsory service, wh'creas tho conference amended this in favour of the general strike proposal. Mr. ,Paul asks why we did not accept tho disclaimer of the secretary of. the Federation. As a.matter of fact it had not reached us when the article was written, though it appeared in tho same issue. Our article Was based/ mainly on tho official report of tho conference published in the official journal-of the Federation of Labour ; and as wo have shown above that left no room for doubt on tho question of the Federation's attitude. Mr. Paul's attack, however, has served ono good purpose. It has served to show that there are men in tho ranks of tho Federation who arc alarmed at tho extravagant views and dangerous methods of the extremists who so largely dominate its councils. His attack on the critics of the organisation is in reality an apology for 'his own colleagues wlio' have been persuaded, possibly through his efforts, to abandon a course which had it been carried to the extreme suggested would have been an act of base treachery to every working man now in the fighting lines of tie Allies in Europe.