THE LABOUR PARTY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 88, 7 January 1918, Page 7

THE LABOUR PARTY

AND 11EV. HOWARD ELLIOTT'S CHARGES. Sir, —In what purports to be Mr. Howard Elliott's reply to my previous letter, that gentleman with characteristic ovasiveness resorts to vague goneralities, and never once attempts to furnish the proofs with '.which every honest man should be prepared to back up a serious charge Mr. Elliott's original charge, first launched from tho platform at an admission-by-tickot meeting (whore there was little possibility of tho statement being challenged), and published broadoast in tiie Press, was to the effect that the Labour movement is now controlled by Roman. Catholics. That allegation was supported by no evidence- whatever; and now, instead of answering the challonge to produce his evidence, the maker of the charge resorts to the subterfuge of declaring that lie made inquiries of "cortain men" on the Labour councils and union oxecutives, and ho wishes me to take his unsupported word for it that the statements of theso "certain ■ men" bear out his charges, Now, in view of recent happenings, Mr. Elliott cannot complain when I regret that I am unablo to accept his bald statement for gospel truth. It is open to him to establish his bona fides by giving mo the names of tho Labour officials he says ho got his information from. If he is not prepared to do this ho must not expect that his allegation will bo seriously regarded by tho ordinary thinking man or woman. It .is not true that "the Boiiian Catholic Church took ,in active part in securing tho return of tho present member" of a Wellington Labour constituency, nor is thero any truth whatever in the charge that "a priest in tho electorate was an active canvasser" for tho Labour candidate. Mr. Hindmarsli is the only M.P. who represents a Wellington" Labour constituency, and if Mr. Elliott is sure of his ground lot him bring forward his proofs—lot linn name the priest who actively canvassed for Mr. Hindinarsh. At tho same tjmo I do not know of any reason why either a priest or a parson should bo deprived of his citizen rights at election time. A priest ought to have the samo right to support Mr. Hindmarsh or any other Labour man, as, say, the Rev. Howard Elliott had to support Mr. J. J. bullivan for,J?4irnoll last election. Mr. bullivan ran as an Independent Labour candidate, and was well known as a member of tho Catholic Church; but because Mr. Elliott supported him bo one was foolish enough to charge Mr. Sullivan with being supported by tlio Orange Lodge or Mr. Elliott .with having been captured by tho Catholic "'not true that Mr. Webb "is absolutely dependent on the Roman vote" in the Grey electorate. 1 « Grey is a working-class electorate, and Labour- wins there- on the votes of tho working men and women-men ana women of ever; religion and no .religion -and in the face of the opposition of some men 5 who are prommout in the Catholic Church and other men who aie prominent in the Protestant Churches, land still other men who follow no vaguely that something "wont on" at Lyttclton and WmSnl but. he gives us nothing specific Let our clerical opponent furrislthe details of what "went on" and Z names of the people respons.b 1. i ilia 1/ibour Party, lias always stood £ Vartv won't help him much. It i^-d*i? i n ,I Nr^a vote According to their class interests and the measure of their economic knowledge. Generally speaking, the Australian Catholic who « an exploiter votes for the, 'lory lait>, while the Catholic who is of the woikiii" class votes for Labour mid bociiilism. When Mr. Holman was leader of tho New South Wales Labour Party Father Kelly-one of tho most prominent priests in tho western districtswent into the Cootnimmdra olec orate nnd sought to secure Mr. Holman s defeat, because- the Labour Party s education policy did not meet with Father Kelly's approval: and in every elnetmn that has taken placo prominent Catholics havo figured as Labour's opponents. Much less than twenty-five yours ago— indeed, as late us twelve or t■ nrtooii years ago-the "Catholic Press" (with which Cardinal lloran was identified) was vigorously attacking the i\ew South Wales Labour Party, and declnrj n <r that Catholics should not join it— which fact alone is sufficient disproof of the assertion that Cardinal Moran twenty-five years ngo ordered Catholics to capture the Labour Party. The statement that the Catholics did caphire tlio Labour Party, and that as a result tho Australian Labour movement

"lies in ruins to-day," is as fantastic as it. is false. Tlib Labotif movement in Australia—with all its faults—is moro virile and cleaner and more powerful than ever.. Its decisive victory oyor the Tory effort to iaston conscription on tho people of tho island continent amply demonstrates the fnct. Instead of furnishing tho proofs that I askod for, Mr. Elliott calls on mo to accept the onus of disproving his vaguo assertions. Ho challenges ino to name any Labour representative in Parliament who was opposed by Kome, and who to-day holds his seat in the face of Roman opposition. That is a challenge that reminds one of the cuttlefish squirting its inky lluid in the face of its opponent as it flees for cover. Tho Labour mombers do not hold their seats in the face of Roman opposition or Protestant opposition, for the simple reason that Labour does not fight on religious grounds but on economic grounds, and consequently its clash is with those whose.class interest it is to maintain existing economic conditions. It is only when the church (of whatever denomination) takes sides against, Labour on the economic question- that Labour clashes with it.

Mr. Elliott departs from fact when he attempts by uinucndo to make people believe that tho last Labour conference contained a preponderance of delegates "with Irish names." There is no reason why delegates with Irish names should not sit on Labour conferences. The man with an Irish name lias as much right to the franchise as the man with any other name. The Labour movement does not demand from its members that they shall havo boon born only in New Zealand, nor does it concern itself about their religious beliefs; all that it asks is that those who range themselves beneath its banner shall accept its ccononiio and political programme, and shall'bo prepared to fight for justice along tlie lines laid down from time to timo. But it will bo found, if any ono wishes to put the matter to the test, that tho non-Catholics outnumbered the Catholics on last Labour conference by at least two to one. It will also be found/that on every L.R.C. the non-Catholics outnumber the Catholics. It is for Mr. Elliott to oxplain why he resorts to these palpable misstatements to back up his case. Tho statement that the last Labour Conference passed a resolution in support of tho State purchase and control of tho liquor ' traffic is also quite untrue, as is ■ the innuendo that this was ' dono as a result of the Catholics being in the majority. Tho Labour Coiiforaiioe niado no pronouncement whatever in favour of either the I State purchase or Stato control of the liquor traffic. Oil tho contrary, it left it quite open to every member to oppose State control and to vote for out prohibition. All that it deolarcd was that the people who favoured State control should have the samo right to vote for it as the brewers havo to vote for continuance undor private control.

The Labour members voted to exempt teachers and clergymen, just as they consistently supported exemption for overy religious and conscientious objector—the Labour movement does not believe that any man should bo conscripted if he conscientiously objects to military service. If Mr. Elliott believes that to exempt men with religious objections is "utterly unjust and , unBritish," will he tell us what he is doing in New Zealand? He is of military age, and every inun of military ago who opposes the exemption of other men should be in the trenches.

If Mr. Elliott was not altogether lacking in information concerning tho Labour movement he would have known that neither tho platform speakors of Labour nor its newspaper editors make attacks on either churches or churchmen as such. The Labour movement concedes to every man and every woman the right to his or her own religious belief without interference. But when churchmen assume the role of political antagonists of Labour and attack either tho Labour movement or tho principles it stands for, then the Labour movement and its platform and journalistic representatives never hesitate to place themselves on the defensive. Is it necessary to refer to "Tha Maoriland Worker" pamphlet (written by Edward Hartley) in reply to Archbishop Redwood's attack on Socialism? If at any time any body of men takn the field not as a religious organisation, but as an anti-Labour force, and declare their intention of entering the political arena in opposition to the candidates of Labour, and they they use their platform to slander the Labour movement and to scatter wicked falsehoods concerning it, and if they, further endeavour to drag Labour into tho slime and ooze of sectarian strife, then it will not matter to the Labour movement whether such people call themselves the Catholic Federation or the Protestant Political Association. Labour will fling every slander back in the teeth of the men .who utter it, and will strip the cloak of hypocrisy from the shoulders of tho slanderers. Neither Mr. Semple nor the editor of "The Worker," myself, or any other Labour representative has done more than defend the movement from Mr. Elliott's misstatemeiits.

However, beforp Mr. Elliott ventures to ask serious-minded men to believo that thero is anything in the charges he seeks to level against Labour, lot him eonio prepared with evidence to prove his ense. It is not sufficient for him to make totally unsupported assertions and then holt from tho courtroom as soon as he is invited to enter tho witness-box and furnish that measure of substantiation which every rational man should be propared to offer, and which all reasonablo men arc entitled to demand.—l am, etc., T. GILMORE, Assistant secretary, Wellington Labour Representation Committee. January 4, 1918.