Grey River Argus MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1927. TO WHAT END?

Grey River Argus, 28 February 1927, Page 4

Grey River Argus MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1927. TO WHAT END?

Misrepresentation of the otgan ised workers is such a familiar feature of the anti-Labour newspaper that most readers nowadays either ignore it, or take it with a generous pinch of sail, but it is occasionally interesting to analyse a sample, such as the editorial on Saturday of the Hokitika paper, served up in the usual setting. Prefacing its remarks with a hackneyed allusion to “.Reds,” it makes the State Miners’ stand of last week for the principle of safety lite occasion of asserlions not only inane, but false, and culpably misleading. Thus it declares the stoppage was simply a “squabble over an hour or Iwo’s lime for a fraction of the. employees.” It goes on:— Al the behest of someone, all Ihe men are calk'd out as a “protest.” Doubtless were Ihe men as a whole to be consulted, the aggregate decision woitiu show more wisdom. Tile rank and file ate never consulted until the men are knee-deep in trouble, and then there is a display of misplaced loyalty Io leaders, which is as ridiculous as the mistaken course in the first instance.” Now the foregoing proves one of two things, and if is that our southern contemporary either did not trouble to ascertain even the outstanding facts of Ihe stoppage, or, if it did, then that it is deliberately misrepresenting them. If the former is the ease, the “Guardian” has no warranty to comment upon what it

has neglected to understand. No doubt, it would prefer to comment untrammelled by the truth if its object were simply to vilify Labour, as would appear. In the firs! place, the Union took no action except what was decided by the full membership in meeting assembled. In Hie second place, the leaders of the Union were not 1 he movers of the resolution to stop. In the third place, the Union set greater importance by far upon a safeguard of life and limb (in their demand for a continuous attendant at the ventilating fan) han they did upon “an hour or iwo’s time for a fraction of the mtployees-” The proof of that s simply the fact that the men are •(‘Sliming before the matter of the lime in question is decided, whercts the management itself has eir lorsed the wisdom of their denand for a fan attendant by con■eding it before deciding the oilier natter. 'Then the “fraction” of lie men happens to comprise those utgaged in the largest section by 'ar of the State Mines. Where hen is the sense or fair play in my West Coast paper prating ibout consulting the men when it a :i:s all along outstanding that the Jnion as a whole by a prepondermt majority, decided the policy, fhi.s is the sort of stuff served up o fool Werl landers that t he Labmr Movement is inimical to the teople. It is not meant to enigliten anyone, but to bulldoze as nany as may lake it at face value. )ne would imagine, after Dobson tnd Millerton examples, that no West Coast paper would attempt o put blinkers Upon its readers is regards Hie wisdom of Hie ] n-inciple of safety first. One has ; mwever, to reckon with a paper 1 live the “Guardian,” which, to liscredit Labour, wmilj. apparent y risk discrediting itself. I