CORRESPONDENCE

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3650, 11 June 1927, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

(To the Editor). Sir, —In reference to keeping the Ilimatangi road in its present position right alongside the railway line, as mentioned in your last issue by a correspondent “Progress,” I would like to ask the chairman of the Manawatu County Council, if he thinks it is a fair proposition to keep the road where it is. when the chance comes to put it where it ought to be. Now, sir, has the chairman ever been in a, position of driving along that road when he has had to pass a motor lorry and the train either in fi motor car or gig? If lie has then he should be the last man to advocate keeping the road where it is. I have had the experience and I don’t want it again. “Safety first,” should be the motto of every public man. I hope the Council will have the foresight to put safety before economy. Thanking you, sir. I am, etc., COCKIE. [WE understand that the Railway Department own a reserve five chains wide from the racecourse to Ilimatangi on the western side of the road, and one chain on the eastern side from Motuiti to Ilimatangi. Between these two reserves runs the roadway and the railway, the latter on the actual arterial road line. The County Council’s proposal is to reconstruct the present road with a clearance of 7ft, from the railway line, and 18ft. in width, and the construction of a stock track to the west of the road. This will provide ample space for passing traffic and a clearance for stock. The reconstruction of the road on this plan will cost £2,200 per mile, as against £4,000 per mile if a new road is constructed. The Council’s proposal will safeguard traffic, provide for stock, and will save the ratepayers half the cost of a new road. —Ed.H.] (To the Editor). Sir, —Your correspondent, C. P. Gray, in his effort to apologise for Lis Union’s action (presumably?) -and no doubt the secretary in particular. has given me the opening to make public for the first time the reason for my action in which he refers to me as a “well-known strikebreaker,” which reference 1 applaud, as it will show, when it is a matter of principle involved, how one is liable to be misrepresented and castigated by the C. P. Gray ilk, should one put into action their main plank, i.e., freedom of thought, speech and action. It will be necessary for me to refer your readers back to just previous to the 1922 elections, when I was a member of the committee of the Labour candidate, who, by the way, should have been the Rev. M. Ayreton, had lie got. a fair deal. Very well, at the final meeting of the committee held in Shannon, I moved the following resolution: “That the executive of the Seamen’s Union be communicated with, and asked to stay their hands as regards any industrial upheaval pending the result of the elections, as we in the rural electorates were trying to convince the electors that we upheld constitutional action in all things, and by going on strike on the eve of the elections would ruin our chance of capturing this electorate.” I failed to And a seconder. Now, Mr C. P. Grey, I advocated constitutional ac tion from the soap box myself, in order to further the interests of the candidate, on such occasions. At the termination of that meeting, I took up this attitude, that if the seamen of New Zealand “scabbed on us at the ballot box, by making our position untenable, in view of

our assurances to the electors as regards constitutional action —by driving the farmers and producers against us, then I would, be one to uphold what I and the candidate had told the electors in public meeting's, and on street corners, and I assured those round me, and the candidate in particular, that I would make one to break the unconstitutional action of the seamen and maintain what we had led the electors to believe we professed. Shortly, I refused to “scab” on the principles which we so devoutly professed, not forgetting the seamen were striking against that principle, as they struck against* an awavd of the Court. As to doing nothing for the toilers, lie bids fair to get the mantle of Annamas. In close on thirty years of Unionism I have been a member of several; have organised and held their highest office, formed branches on the political side, fought their cause in Court and at round-table conferences, was an active member of the Federation of Labour; also-one who helped to bring into being the present Labour Parly; have been union secretary. Yet never once did I take a sixpence in remuneration. Where was C'. P. Grey in those days? Enough for now. He has quoted figures which, accepted as correct, that the men concerned were satisfied they could make in the vicinity of £1 per day at the offer, had not the Union blocked it. Further, lie says it is erroneous to say that a worker can live on less than His per ton in the winter. Well, how in the name of commonsense he expect them to live on nothing per day during the same period. Further, how is it that even in the llusli of the season some of the mill hands get even less per day? Use his argument this way: The award is such that on present market prices the miller only covers expenses, then a fall in price takes place, the miller closes down. He calls that a lock-out. Well, does the Union.get the right to lock men out? His party today are beseeching the Government for work for the unemployed. Yet his Union in its wisdom has forged a large number out of work in Foxton. Where’s the sense. “Thou shalt not work” is the slogan; not “may,” as he puts up as a quibble. His letter is only written to get a smack at me, "because I had the backbone to put into action the principles I have stated above. Now, Mr. Editor, I leave you to judge. I preferred what T professed rather than be an electioneering liar. By taking up the cudgels on behalf of another party, Mr C. P. Grey lias done me a service, no doubt unintentionally, by giving me the opportunity to give the public the reason why I preferred to be called “strikebreaker” than to “scab” on a principle that we endeavoured to make the electors believe we stood for, and under the same circumstances I would have no compunction in doing so again. I happen to know that the strikes of 1922 and 1925 were engineered from within those organisations mostly concerned. Come again, Mr C. P. Grey, I have plenty of idle time, because the Union says I shall not work where I was employed. — Yours, etc., E. G. MARTIN.