HUNNISHNESS.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 6 July 1916, Page 2

HUNNISHNESS.

(To the Editor.)

tiir, —I ;tnVsurprised that John Robertson should discover a personal note in my last letter. He issued the challenge in his opening letter and used strong language; does he deny me the sam© liberty? I have heard of legal practitioners having no case and for that very reason aibusing the other side. 115 says: "The main point, however, is that the dairy employees representatives when they met the A.P.U. representatives did so with the fuli knowledge of the fact in regard to the A.P.U.'s standing." This, 1 deny, and in support of my contention will refer your I readers to a leading article ill the coun- , try workers' page (No. 87 of the Maoriland Worker, of May 24th, under the heading of "The A.P.U. «nd Muddle." where it says " an appeal to the Labour Department for information as to whether the agreement had any standing, | was answered to the effect that it was not worth the paper it was written on, beoause the dairy workers had no right in the A.P.U. as 'they were not pastoral workers.'" The Department insisted that the- dairy workers should be cx- | eluded, mid said that unless they w»r* the application for the adjustment of , awards made to legally empower the ! A.i'.U. would be refused."

| Will John Robertson have the liardi- ! hood, in the face of this quotation from the gospel of organized labour, to accuse me of promulgating a Tialf truth, 01- will he bo good enough to point out where I differ in my 1 condensed statement of the position from tho statement by the editor of the country workers' page in -the Maori!,-md Worker? Some people credit the farmors with having their wits clogged "with hayseed, and I am prepared to adlmit that in the past they were looked upon as fair gaitne by some, to Ue let down considerably, but of late they have been at work on their thinking machinery and a proof of tho improvement thereof is to be found the way they have foiled the A.P.U.'b little ruee. But when I read .of his interpretation of the Arbi-

tration Act and of all the benefits derived therefrom, there was conjured up before my mind an ineidient of some years ago. A native was teliiiig me of some dealings with a pakelia, and it appeared from the reciial of the transaction that the paikeha's .methods were somewhat tortuous; and after each separate illustration of the patella's conduct tho native said ''Isn't ho funny " Does John llobertson imagme that the tanners have forgotten the lesson they were taught some two years ago during the big strike when the fa ran era and their sons were called to Wellington to protect the truits of their labour '< Will he tell his farmor friends I where conciliation and the Arbitration I Act got to during that period? Will he just bo good enough to explain to us fanners that though tho strikers had a sum of about lid per box of butter in question and the farmers had about oOs per box which was the value proj d.uced by their industry, yet if these I name farmers removed their produce from rail to ship they were stigmatised jas 'blacklegs by the strikers; 'and all j this time there was the Arbitration Act for the farmers to rely upon aud trust in. John Roberteon says so; "Isn't jit funny." It is the duty of every* I responsible person 111 the dairy indusj try to take every precaution iby properily constituted methods to protect the learnings of their workers; and for this j reason the registration of the National j Dairy Association, as the repreaentaj tive of a very large number of dairy companies, was ordered to bo cancelled, and something ibetter calculated to protect the interests of the dairying indiustry is proposed to take its place. Mr Editor, if I keep going on with this subject I might expect you to come at this letter with your ibig scissors so I will pull, out now, and 1 expeot that Friend Robertson will bo out soon with his reply; after which, with your permissiop, I hope to get going again.— I am, eitc., I JAMES PROUSE.