The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, November 18, 1913. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1173, 18 November 1913, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, November 18, 1913. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Messrs Robertson, M.P. and

Parry visited Foxlou ou Sunday, aud addressed a public meeting in the evening at the Royal Theatre. Mr Robertson is the representative of this constituency in Parliament by virtue of fooling a section of the Massey following at the last general election. His broken election pledges are still green in the memory of electors, aud are quite in keeping with the creed of the Red Federation of which he is a bright aud shining light. Mr Parry is the gentleman whom the Flaxmills Employees Union Executive appointed as their organiser at a handsome salary over the heads of belter qualified, if less revolutionary, applicants for the position. Mr Parry, be it remembered, was one of the “heroes” of the Waihi strike, and his speeches before that strike and his subsequent leaving the strike to its fate are amusing reminiscences. During the past weeks, he has been actively employed among the strikers in Wellington, aud working himself into a perfect frenzy in an endeavour to promote class feeling, aud to bring about a general strike. It is for the flaxmills employees to say whether this is part of their organiser’s duties for which he receives their gold. Soon the flaxmills employees will recognise the tail which wags the dog. The object of the visit of these two Federaliouists was to place the “true facts” concerning the strike before a Foxtou audience. Half • truths were uttered by both speakers, Mr Robertson dealing with the political aspect of the strike, and Mr Parry the industrial, from their point of view. The press, employers and Government were condemned in the usual style. Strange to say the speakers maintained a discreet silence in regard to the feeling of the flaxworkers, aud not a word was uttered about secret ballots- If the strike issue were submitted to a secret ballot, the bottom would fall out of it aud, incidentally, the Federation ot Labour, in about a week. The workers associated with the Federation ot Labour were never so much the puppets of the employers as they appear to be of the Labour bosses who are leading them to starvation.

In Saturday’s Issue we accused Mr Robertson, M.P., of being responsible for a heated and undignified scene in the House, the result of a question prompted by something he is alleged to have over heard and uttered by Colonel Heard to a special constable on the wharf. Mr Robertson, at Sunday night’s meeting, denied the soft impeachment, and read his Hansard proof to show how dignified he had been. While giving Mr Robertson credit for his dignified climb down, this does not do away with the fact that Mr Robertson was primarily responsible for the undignified scene in the House. Had Mr Robertson approached Colonel Heard instead of salving his wounded dignity by rushing his question in the House, the cause of the undignified scene would have been avoided. We think this is perfectly clear. Mr Robertson did not read the whole of the article he quoted from, but he facetiously asked that some one should enquire the meaning oi the word “Syndicalist” as applied by us to the Federation of Labour from the editor of the Hkrau>. Mr Robertson, who has proved himself so skilled at drawing fine distinctions between the “spirit and the letter” of such a word as “pledge/’ could surely have defined the application of “syndicalistic” as applied to the Federation of Labour to the satisfaction of the audience. A “syndic” may be defined as one chosen to act for others. The syndicalistic Federation of Labour is a body of men chosen to act, by some blind fate, for th« bleeding to death of the sacred cause of Labour,

Mr Parry advised local workers at the meeting on Sunday night not to handle any shipping arriving at the local port because the cargo would be scab material. From what he knew of the local men they wouldn’t turn to. That sounds alright but we are of opinion that Mr Parry is judging the majority by a few noisy ones, whose blatant talk has become nauseating to the better class workers. If the latter, through abject fear of intimidation, should refuse to work local shipping, there are plenty of others who will supph the limited demand. It is pre-

posterous to imagine that the local port will be locked up at the dictation of a few men who could be very well spared Irom the community. We are sure wiser counsels will prevail amoug those who are not bereft of common sense aud that they will accept the conditions of labour held out to them. They need not fear intimidatiou because the law will protect them from obstructionists —from those men who don’t want to work themselves, but who seek to prevent others from doing so, no matter by what methods.

Mr P. T. Robinson, secretary of the Flaxmills Employee's Union, presided over the meeting addressed by Messrs Parry and Robertson, M.P., Labour Federaliouists, on Sunday night. Mr Robinsou bad something to say about a report which appeared in the Herald concerning the recent trouble at Mr Rose’s mill. He informed the meeting that he asked us to withdraw the statements made, which we refused to do. Further, that the reason Mr Rose’s mill was stopped was due to the fact that there was no llax available. Mr Robinson would have been well advised to leave this matter alone. He knows, and other people know, that an attempt was made to hold up this mill because a young fellow employed in the swamp volunteered ior special police duly, and we are in possession of all the lads from the interview by two of the employees with Mr Rose, down to the cowardly type written anonymous letter written to one of Mr Rose’s prominent employees. We have nothing to withdraw but much to supplement when the occasion demands it.

It is amusing to hear the uttered execrations against the Press by the baud of extremists who are controlling the destinies of the Federation of Labour. “A lying press,” “a capitalistic press” and so on, ad lib. On the whole, the Press of this country is appreciated by the masses for its sense of honour, truth and justice. It is unfortunate, yet natural, to find some people who don’t like the truth. Can any of these men say, if misrepresented by the Press, that they have not had every opportunity to put their side of the case before the public ? They know they cannot. All their public utterances —fit for publication—have been printed—unfortunately for some of no paper has stinted them space and yet they are not satisfied. What more do they want ?