AUCKLAND TRAMWAY AGREEMENT.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 50, 23 February 1912, Page 14

AUCKLAND TRAMWAY AGREEMENT.

Sir, —There arc certain statements made by your Auckland correspondent in your issue of February 2- that call for somo attention. If allowed do pass unchallenged they will probably bo accepted by your readers as statements of established fact instead of rather ha/.y expressions of somewhat confused thought. The passages I refer to are, in my opinion, misleading—not wilfully, but blindly misleading—the result probably of hasty compilation rather than deliberate intention, but nono the less insidiously injurious to tho interests of the Federation of Labor on that account. Your correspondent states that by signing their agreement for one year tho Tramways Union has rendered itself unable to give assistance to other unions that may ho in trouble during that time. I can hardly understand anyone rushing into print with such a groundless assertion; on the part of an avowed Industrialist it is inexplicable. The directors of the Auckland Tramway Company were under no illusion as regards tho position of the Tramways Union if the Federation called upon them to stand by their fellow-workers in other industries. They stated clearly at the conference when the agreement was completed that there was nothing in it to prevent the tramwaymen participating in a sympathetic strike —an opinion that was cordially endorsed by the Vice-president of the Federation, Mr. W. Barry. It is a trifle surprising, as well as more than a trifle disheartening, to find loading capitalists better posted in Industrialism and Federation methods than those among ourselves who sometimes speak with authority. But then our movement is young, and mistakes are perhaps inevitable. Whence came the "considerable" nuirmuriiigs? Wcro they ''considerable" in tone, quality, volume, or the quarter from which they emanated? Why did not the murnmrcrs assert themselves? Why be content to remain merely "murmurers?" Perhaps they murmur "by stealth and blush to find it fame." Anyhow, "considerable murniurings" is a flight of the imagination, like Omar Khayyam's soul, "'into the invisible." If any section of our forces find consolation and adequate expression in murmuring, there is ho reason on earth why this privilege should bo denied them. It serves a useful purpose. It hugely delights themselves and does no real harm to the movement, The final result is, therefore, more often than not, good. By all means let anybody murmur if theyfeel so disposed, but'the least that might be expected, even from chronic grumblers, is that they would exercise sufficient thought and' care to ensure that their murniurings were directed towards the proper quarters, and against the parties responsible. What reason is there for murmuring at tho Tramways Union? Have they violated any principle of the Federation? Have they established any dangerous precedent? Have they, in signing this agreement, departed in the slightest degree from the accepted policy of the Federation? Were thoy not guided throughout tho whole negotiations by tho Federation? Has not tho Federation signed the agreement? Is not the Federation directly responsible for the one year's agreement? Is it not rather, well—cautious on the part of the murmurers to covertly attack tho Tramways Union when the'blame, or credit (and I maintain the latter, for the settlement rests in the last instance with the Federation. If the Tramways Union has been the cause of considerable murmuring, it is only fair to supposo that tho waterside workers' agreement for two years should have brought forth a raging storm of protest. But the murmur shows no signs of swelling to a chorus. It is still a murmur, by now evm a whisper. It would bo better for all concerned to raise the direct issueagreements or no agreements. Which is the better policy for the Federation lat this particular time and at this stage of its development ? Pin-pricking, bickerings, and all 6\ich forms of irritating futile criticism are as disastrous to workingclass solidarity as any machinations of tho capitalist class. Your correspondent authoritatively remarks that there have been too many interviews with prominent Federation men in the capitalist press up here lately. There have been only two prominent Federation men in Auckland lately—our comrades Bob Scmple and W. Parry. They have used the opportunities afforded them by the capitalistic press to make known to the working-class fact 3 concerning the Federation, and they have used them to somo advantage and profit. If your correspondent imagines that at any time the enemy has been informed, per medium of press interviews, of all that is going on in the Federation camp, his guileless innocence is as refreshing as it is amazing. Can your correspondent point out a single instance where the interests of the workers have suffered in tho slightest degree by any interviews with prominent Federation men appearing in the Auckland newspapers? I have been present at somo of those interviews, and I .can testify as to the scrupulous care that was taken to ensure that nothing inimical to the worker would possibly appear. Practically every word was carefully weighed before uttering, and tho result is that the working-class of Auckland; possess a better knowledge of the Federation's position oh industrial ma.te.oa t.na.n they oould ever gather

from garbled news reports picked up promiscuously. Surely it is bettor to furnish information at your own dis< lotion when you are sure it will be published than to refuse such when you know for a cerLainty that, so doing, you are sure to bo misrepresented' Anyway, combating theoretical ciuicism is as unsatisfactory as lighting .shadows. Let us be confronted with less phantoms; let us have facts. — Yours, etc., P. FRASUR.