MARSHALL IN REPLY TO HICKEY.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 55, 29 March 1912, Page 14

MARSHALL IN REPLY TO HICKEY.

Dear Comrade,— Why does friend Hickey indulge in such vile personalities when in debate? Does he really mean what he writes, or is he suffering from mental aberration, which has developed moral degeneracy land wanton discourtesy ?

''Pliant tools of capitalism,!' "hearts of jackals," "minds filled with serpent's vi-noni," "pumpers of poisonous verbal offal into the minds-of toilers to split their ranks in twain," '"masters' pimj>B with poisonous vapoiings," "Judas who would sell his class" —all this becaxise a man .challenges a portion taken up by $he sub-editor of the oflioial organ of the N.Z.F.L. What a sad pass to arrive at. Thou the comparison between" himself and' myself— —he's an industrialist; I'm a fool because of said challenge. The-N.Z.F.L. is a federation of craft unions, and a very loose one at that. Its officers aro spending all its funds miming up and down the country making and entering into agreements. Is the N.Z.F.L. an organisation tha,t exemplifies Industrial Unionism ? If it does, then I admit hairing made "an egregious blunder"; if it docs not, then friend Rickey has made a palpable error. Why assume another ignorant when lie doesn't see eye to eye with you? Some of us studied and thought out Industrial Unionism before America did. Industrial Unionism is no more an accomplished fact than Socialism.

,■ Making of agreements eeems the order of to-day (much as we may deplore t|ie fact). The question thnn is this: Should the N.Z.F.L. enter into agreements with the deliberate determination of violating those agreements on any trivial pretext? Marshall says ''No." Does Hickey say ''I'es"? My reason for saying "No" is this: Tho N.Z.F.L. is not Industrial Unionism.

Perhaps another question and its answer may make my meaning and position clearer. Should, a :class-conscious proletariat under the banner of Industrial Unionism make or enter into agreements with any of the masterclass? A thousand times NO. When wo are organised in. our might (not mite as now), wo will refuse agreements ; wo will dictate, we will rule. Meanwhile I would say "to hell" (wherever that is) with the I'.L.'s obsolete machinery: its agreement-making tactics, its political bungling—and let us get to work to organise a united body on sound, scientific, . true Industrial linos.

One has no intention to prolong a debatable point into a disagreeable argument between Hickey and myself. But if friend Hickey still persists in coupling my name with the vile slanderous epithets contained in hie last article, and quoted by mc in this, then there can only be war and bitterness between us. Therefore, one demands courteously and firmly that friend Hickey withdraw these imputations unreservedly and unconditionally, not because my integrity, dognity, and honor are at stake, but for the sake of the Cause we both have at heart. Wo can agree to differ. We cannot afford to sling filth, verbal garbage, or mud at each other. Might I as the older man advise friend Hickey to restrain his nat\iral impetuosity when debating with his fellows. Self-restraint and self-con-trol aro the qualities for those in the front. Cultivate those qualities, my frionu and in the meantime withdraw those words that hurt, and which one resents. Hinitly. T. H. MARSHALL.