A Censure and a Reply.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 51, 1 March 1912, Page 7

A Censure and a Reply.

By P. H. HICKEY.

The "Lyttelton Times" of Februaa-3 1 20 contains the following press mesr sage:— INANGAHUA MINERS' UNION REEFTON, February 19. A special meeting of the Inangahua Miners' Union last night dif-cussed a report that Mr. P. H. Hickey had stated that it Avas unnecessary for the workers to keep agreements with the masters. The meeting iinanimously censured Mr. Hickey, if tli6 roi>ort were true, and approved of the principle that no matter wharf! occurred the Inangahua Miners' Union would hold fast to its agreement. It would be interesting to knew the number present at the special meeting of tho Inangahua Miners' Union when tho above resolution was carried. For the sake of the good name of th© organisation, I trust it was not a repr©r sentative gathering. Let mc say to the members of the Inangahua Miners' Union that a wto of censure from any body of workers who approve of the principle tliat "no matter what occurred, the Inangahua. Miners' Union would hold fast to it.ni, agreement," can only be regarded as a. compliment. I trust that the members of the Inangahua Miners' Union knew what they were about when they passed the latter part of their motion. Without any beating about the bush, it means, in plain, unvarnished language, that between seabbory and an agreement they would choose to scab. This in itself damns unoquivocally those present at tho meeting who were parties to the unanimous resolution. Apart altogether from anything I may have said or written, a union which pledges itself to remain loyal to its agreement, "even though tha heavens fall," can no longer be regarded by any right-thinking mcm l lers of the working-class as having even a rudimentary knowledge of what unionism really is. Men who class themselves as unionists, and are part and parcel of a Federation, and yet declaro that no. matter what occurs they are going to cling to their agreement, are dangerous. No longer can they be regarded as comrades in the fight, but rather as craven-hearted creatures who seek shelter behind tho heels of the boss the moment the battlo becomes keen. To scab or break your engagement? To bo loyal to your class or be loyal to tho oppressors of your class ? Thai. is the issue I Men of grit and men of reason will bo found with their class; unionists staunch and true will be found with their class; men who dare will bo with their class! Wliero will bo the men of Inangahua? Methink. o , despite tho reactionary resolution "unanimously passed," the Inangahua. men will not be found cowardly scabbing —ignobly, traitorously scabbing upon their mates. Will you, men cl Inangahua? As I inferred before, I take the vote of censure with a smile of welcome. I refuso to havo my actions dictated by men who pass such resolutions. When I gain the approval of those who, posing as unionists, are not prepared to place their class before agreements, I will have done that which will have degraded mc to the very depths in tho eyes of all thinking people; I will havo done that which will cause mc to hide my traitorous carcase from the eyes of all class-conscious workers for over, lest the justifiable epithet of "Traitor! Traitor 1" be hulled at my miscrablo head. Despite the fulmiuations of the Reefton Union, I .shall continue to preach tho doctrino that agreements cannot bo used as a. medium whereby concerted action on the part of the working-clasp is re-iw l eied impossible and organised Boabi carried on with impunity.