THE LABOUR PARTY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 103, 24 January 1918, Page 6

THE LABOUR PARTY

AND THE REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT'S CHARGES (To the Editor.) i Sir,—l had hoped that the Dev. Mr. Elliott would make at least some attempt to furnish the substantiation of his charges I asked lor in my last letter. Instead of making the slightest pretension of doing this, however, he gambles off in another long succession of quite unsupported assertions. It is unfortunate that Mr. Elliott's mind seems to play him the peculiar trick of making hi:n think that his own ox parte statement is conclusive evidence, Instead of replying to my letter in the only effective way that it could bo roplied to—viz., by placing 011 tho table the proofs I asked for—Mr. Elliott starts off by insinuating that my letter -was not written by myself. That suggestion is a petty meanness which not even Mr. Elliott ought to have introduced into this controversy. Mr. Elliott does not know me personally, and is in 110 position io judge of my qualifications to write a letter. His remarks are, moreover, an insult to every man who functions as a tram worker. Because one happens to earn his living usefully 011 the footboard of a tramcar is no reason why he should not be quite as capable of penning an ordinary letter as the wearer of a clerical collar. My various contributions to the correspondence columns of the daily Press are, I think, sufficient answer to Mr. Elliott's innuendo. However, when he asked bis readers to believe that my last letter was not written from under a tram man's uniform, he wrote truer than he knew; for, as a matter of iaot, it was scribbled from under the blankets while I was suffering acutely with an influenza attack—as my landlady and also the typisto have reason to know. Might 1 add, in this connection, that I should never think of hinting that Mr. Elliott's letters were not his own production; I am sure no one else in New Zealand would have been capablo of writing them. Now. it is not my intention to 1"' Mr. Elliott side-step the- responsibility of producing the proofs of his charges, however many little red herrings he may seek to drag across the track. And so, for the benefit nf both Mr. Elliott and your readers, I propose to recapitulate. First of all, Mr. Elliott said tho Labour movement was controlled by Roman Catholics, and then he told us that he got his information that this was so from "certain men" on tho Labour councils and union executives Ho now seems to think that a bald statement of that sort constitutes a "specific instance." It doesn't: and my demand that he should furnish the names of the "certain men" was quite xeasonable. TJntil he is ready to do this, of what value is his mere assertion? I suggest that the reason that the names are not given is because they cannot bo given—in short, because _ 110 men on either the Labour councils or the union executives ever gave anyone any such information. Then Mr. Elliott told us that "h priest in the electorate • was an active canvasser" for a certain Lahour candidate who won a Wellington constituency. I asked for the name ot the priest, pointing out at the saitie time there was no reason why either a priest or a parson should be deprived ' ns .citizen rights at election time. What is Mr. Elliott's answer? Mmely another unsupported allegation: "A Pi jest approached a friend of mine thinking him to be cue of his utvn' saying, 'Of course, you . are voting with us.' This was explained to mean, Mr. Hindmarsh." 60 it now transpires that the priest who was alleged to have been an "active canvasser" for Mr. Hindmarsh merely said to one individual, "Of course, you aie voting with us," r.nd this, according to Mr. Elliott, is prima facie evidence that the priest was an "active canvasser" for. the Labour Party, and conclusive proof that the priest's action was part of a deep-laid plot on tho part ot Rome to capture Labour. Tho !°6'c °f this sort of argument is that if Mr, Elliott's friend had said to the priest, "Of course, you are voting with us,' it would have been conclusive proof that Mr. Elliott's friend was an ' active canvasser" for Mr. Luke, and that his action revealed the existence of an organised plot on tho part of Mr. Elliott to capture the Reform L arty. Why does Mr. Elliott withhold the name of the alleged priest? Is he ilso as mythical as the "certain men"? Asked to corno forward with his proofs of the things he alleged "happened" at Wanganui and Lytt-ehou, Mr. Elliott proceeds to make yet more fague statements, but again 110 proof whatever is offered. He merely insinuites that "members of the Roman organisation boasted . . . that they vere instructed to support the men who low represent these electorates in the iouse." If this is sg, Mr. Elliott would have 110 difficulty whatever in urnishiug the names of the people who >oasted that they wore so instructed. 111 reply to my refutation of the barge that the last Labour Conference contained a majority of delegates witii rish names (meaning, of course, that lie said delegates wore Catholics), Mr. Dlliott says my denial is "worthless in he. face of tho testimony of men who :uow that assembly and its make-up.'' lilt, unfortunately for Mr. Elliott's ase, there is no "testimony" forthcoming from anyone to that effect. Mr. Illiott can, if 110 chooses, clear himself f the suspicion of possessing a very ively imagination by furnishing tlis ames of the men wTiom he would have s believe "testified" to him concernng this matter. In the meantime, I m well satisfied to let the list of dcleates speak for itself. There wero bout 60 delegates at the conference, nd their names, published in the offc i ial report, sufficiently indicate the ilseness of Mr. Elliott's charge. In his first letter Mr. Elliott made i deliberate charge that the Labour tonferenco passed a resolution in favur of State purchase and control of be liquor Traffic. In his latest reply e is silent about this extraordinary! lisstatenient. What explanation lias e to offer? On whose testimony did s allow himself to be led into public- ' declaring that the Labour Confernce had done something it did not do ? f'liat apology has he to offer to both le Labour movement for his distortion I the fact and to the public for his rort to mislead them? ?

I insist that 31 r. Elliott must bo prepared to furnish satisfactory answers to the foregoing questions before he can be held to have any claim to be taken seriously by men wiio are both in earnest am* honest.

There are one or two items in his latest aggregation of vague assertions which might be referred to. He makes tho charge that a secret conference was held.in Christchiircli, ''as the result nt which the 'Maoriland Worker' passed from the control of tho Shearors 1 Union, and presaged the formation of the federation of Labour." 1 have taken the jrouble to interview the preseni. manager of "lie "Maoriland Worker' , (Mr. J. Glover), who was present as a delegate at tho conference referred to, and lie characterises the statement thai it w;is a "sscret" conference with an ulterior purpose as an amazing inaccuracy. By Mr. Glover's courtesy I liiivu boon able to examine the very comprehensive report of that conference (taken by a well-known professional shorthand writer), published in the "Maoriland Worker" of November 15, 1910, and it indicates that the conference was held in exactly the same way as Labour and other conferences are now held. It did not "presage tho formation of the Federation

of Labour." The conference was between delegates representing the Shearers' Onion on tho one hand, and the Federation of Labour on the other; and its outcome was that the coal miners and others unions, through the Federation of Labour, undertook to join with the shearers in raising funds to place tho "Maoriland Worker" (then a monthly journal) on a sounder financial footing for the purpose of converting it into a weekly. This was done; and to-day the "Maoriland Worker" is under tho control of a board of representatives elected by the shearers, miners, and other unionists. The charge that some one waved a greon flag over Mr. Webb's head when ho was first returned for tho Grey is

a puerility that hardly deserves notice

But I have the authority of Mr. J. Arbucklo (secretary of the Miners' Federation) to say that Mr. Elliott's statement is untrue. Mr. Arbuokle (who was one of 'Mr. Webb's committee) says he was present when Mr. Webb returned '.hanks, and nothing of the sort occurred. Ho adds that Mr. Webb's colours were red—the world's Labour colour —and Mr Hannah's,wcrehluo .and white. The only mixing of colours thnt occurred, he informs me, was when a few of Mr. Hannah's supporters added Mr. Webb's' red to their own white nnd blue in the spcond ballot contest. But isn't Mr. Elliott rather straining the possibilities when lie infers that practically all who voted for the Liboral Party in tho Grey first ballot were Catholics? I was. naturally, just a little, intertested in tho alarming charge that the waterside workers hung a green flag outside- their window during the 1913 strike; inasmuch as I was then in tho ranks of tho watersiders, and knew nothing of tho flag incident. Mr. J. G. Bruce} union secretary, says it is true a green flag was on several occasions displayed from the. union window. It was used to signal the Strike Committee when it was deemed necessary to call them together urgently during that strenuous period—and that is all there

is to it. The many Catholic farmers who did duty as strike-breakers and special constables will no doubt bo somewhat surprised to learn at this late hour that their own Church really had

control of the Strike Committee and

! was back of tho strike. Isn't there i just a. danger that, as soou as Mr. ElI Unit discovers that tho. _ Wellington Corporation uses a green light to signal "all clear" on the tram linos, he will at onco see in the fact evidence that the City Council has been captured by Home? One by one Mr. Elliott's alleged facts I thus tumble about his ears, and it j does appear to me that he deserves all ! tho sympathy that is likely to 'come i to him by reason of his inherent tendi ency to 'flounder on the least provocation into a slough of everything that belongs to the ridiculous. It was doubtless this unfortunate tendency which ! led him to accept tho word of some other equally bndly informed person whom the "Sydney Morning Herald" J rc-yrted as saying that "the P.L.L. is ! composed of LW.W.'s, Sinn Feiners, I and Fenians." Mr. Elliott ought to ! have known that that was the charge hysterically flung by Mr. W. M. Hughes I against the party from which ho deserted, and whoever else used it was only parrot-chirping after Mr. Hughes. Mr. Ellio'tt doesn't appear to j know (although, of course, Mr. Hughes j knew it quite well, and all political ! students know it) that the I.WAV. peoI plo repudiate political action, and do not join political parties. They claim that the supreme "method is direct action, and not only do the I.W.W. men of Australia denounce the Labour Party, but they also.direct their campaign against the revolutionary Socialists who stand for political action. , Another extiaordinary charge that my clerical friend has permitted to bubble over tht fount of his imagination is that tho Federation of Labour "was sn badly led that it blundered into the r,?ave eu> it had time become the instrument of Rome."_ The Federation of Labour is not in its grave, however much tho enemies of Labour might dt-nre to see it there. _It lives; it his it., headquarters at Chnstchnreii; it held hs annual conference in Wellington last July; and its president and secreta'Vy are- two of the bestknjv/n Labour men in New Zealand, and (this will interest Mr. Elliott, I know) ar? 'oo'-- non-Catholics. Space will net permit.of my following Mr. Kiiott through all the rest of the maze hfc traverses; but I note with some amazement that he says ho did not- support Mr. J. J. Sullivan's candidature for Parnell. He says he "neither spoke, wrote, canvassed, nor voted for Mr. Sullivan." Will Mr. Ellb f .t (ieny that he was a member of the National St'ieols' Defence League— the anti-P-ilile-in-schools organisation ? Will his dfliy tliiit Mr. Sullivan was an anti-Bible iu-tclion's candidate? Will lie de'iy t->al the Defence League supported Mr. Sullivan? Will he deny ijwt in cbe course of an interview with the Auckland "Star" of December 12, 10M. ho said that "there could bi; ro dt.ul.t that the Bible-in-schools campaign was influenced by the strong Rfl'/ci'so'vote in the House upon the J'/lumtion Crremittee's report, and notwitbsldiining the bishops of the Anojlioir.i Clnir.h and the parsons of the McHiodisl am: Presbyterian churches nr.d file Salvation Army, they were not able to ral'v their forces. . . . Undoubtedly in in:inv electorates the National Schools Defence League had influenced snores of-votes, as in the case of AiK:kl.r;d East, while the admirable shoMiii" n:a<lo by Mr J. J. Sullivan in I'arneli might in somo measure he recounted for by the wholehearted iidherencp to the present system. '' W,] , JVr Elliott say how anyone (.ould i-:fer anything else from that statomiMis hut ti'.-it he was a supporter of Mr. Sullivan in the 1914 campaign ? Mi.iht 1 conclude by urging upon Mr. Elliott that i'l order to put himself ri.'ln with your readers as well as with tilt Labour movement, he must lose no titr» in supplying the definite information I have now twice asked him for.— I am, etc., T. GILMORE, Assistant Secretary, Wellington Labour Representation Cr.mmittC!!.