THE GENERAL STRIKE CANARD

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2830, 22 July 1916, Page 10

THE GENERAL STRIKE CANARD

Sir,—You will not expect me to follow You over your column of explanation why you expressed the opinion you did iu your leading article of Tuesday .tost. The weak point 'in your lengthy case is contained in this paragraph: "Mr. Paul, asks why we did not accept the disclaimer of the secretary of tho Federation. As a lna'ttcr of fact, it had not reached us when the article, was written,, though it appeared in the same issue. Our article was based mainly on the oMicinl report of the conference'published in the official journal of the Federation of Labour. . . ."

Exactly. Had you directed your' readers' attention by 'one word to the sen retary's denial, I should not have worried you with a criticism. And when ,wu read the official report of the conference in the "Maoriland Worker" you knew that, its report was incomplete because it ended abruptly with the partial/ consideration by . the conference of 'the Military Service Bill, and wns followed' immediately .by the words "To be coutiuued iiext week." Had you wished to know all the facts you .should have remembered that in .Vour own issue of the ,7th instant you published the official report of the conference on the Military Service Bill, and that report contained the full decision of the conference. on the Bill. In other words, it fold vour readers what the "Maoriland Worker" (being a weekly newspaper) could not tell them until a week later. However, J must thank you for giving me the' opportunity of placing the whole matter fairly before your readers—l am, otc., J. T. PAL'I. Wellington, July 20. [Mr. Paul must exci.se us for again' correcting his presentation of the facts. The "Maoriland Worker's" official' report .published, on July 12 was only incomplete in the sense that it did not cover the whole proceedings of the conference. It did cover that portion of the proceedings relating to the general strike proposal, which is the part under discussion, and it showed clearly and definitely that thai proposal was carried. Moreover, a further resolution empowering the executive lo issue the ballot paper.-! at their discretion was also carried, and it was here that the I'eport broke off—that is to say.' after the voto on the strike question lnd been decided.' There is not the slightest doubt on the point. The conference had at that stage discussed the general strike proposal, voted on it, and carried it. Mr. Paul says this shn-iUI not have been sufficient for us to base our comments on. That. Me should instead Jiave accepted a teport supplied by the Federation to the daily Press, which made no reference to the general strike proposal at all. Apparently we were lo assume that the full dehiled official .report published in the official organ of the Federation wns an invention, and the brief summary suppiled to the daily Press the authentic version! What, actually happened is made clear in the issue of the "Maoi-dand Workor" of Julv 19.-circulated on Thursdnv last. The'resolution in, favour'of .a plebiscite on the question' of a irenernl strike Was carried as reported; indicating that the majority of the Federation dele: Kates favoured this course. . Subsequently the unusual course of. recommitting the clause was adonted, and the clause was (hen deleted. Why? Not because the conference olvie'ded to the strike proposal as Mr. Paul's comments would suggest, but because, .to quote the w-Jl'ds o1 the mover: "If it went, forth .' /} general strike was contemplated itwouhl confuse the issue." What happened then The conference found itself evenly divided. fllul it was only on thescasting vote of the chairman that the clause was deleted. And with a full knowledge of these facts Mr. I'aul indulges in his prottv show of indignation, and- seeks (o make the public believe that the sentiments and. views of the Federation hr.ve nnfairly criticised.] ,