WORKERS' POLITICAL COMMITTEE VERSUS LIBERAL ASSOCIATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12482, 13 October 1902, Page 6

WORKERS' POLITICAL COMMITTEE VERSUS LIBERAL ASSOCIATION.

TO THE EDITOR; Sir, —I see that the Otago Liberal Association—note that the word " Labour " has dropped out of the title and it is no longer the "Liberal Labour Federation"—has selected three candidates to support at the coming election. These three are Messrs Millar, Arnold, and Chisholm. The Workers' Political Committee has also selected three candidates—viz., Messrs Millar, Arnold, and Barclay. Both bodies have, chosen Messrs Millar and Arnold, but they have differed as to the third, the one having Mr Chisholm and the other Mr Barclay. This is leading to confusion amongst those who have previously supported the Labour ticket, and it seems to me that it is necessary to throw some light -'on the relative strength and position of these two bodies, with their rival candidates—for it is a question between Mr Chdsholm and Mr Barclay— and allow the supporters of the party to judge which has the better claim to represent the party.

First of all, the Liberal Association strove hard to get the Workers' Political Committee to allow it to choose one of the three candidates, the Workers' Political Committee to choose the other, and the third to be mutually agreed upon by both bodies—or, in other words, the Liberal Association wished to have equal rights with the Workers' Committee in choosing candidates. This the Workers' Committee refused to entertain, and rightly so I think, because it ca'me out in the interview between the two bodies that the Liberal Association was to a largo extent composed of employers; that the numerical strength of tho Liberal Federation was, and is still, an unknown quantity— and in spite of repeated interrogations on this point not even their secretary (who should surely know) would give an answer, tho natural inference being that he was ashamed to let it be known how few members were in the Liberal Association; — that anyone who liked to pay the nominal sum of Is could become a member, so that if Mr Chisholm or any other political aspirant wished to be nominated by this body all he would have to do was to buy £5 worth of tickets and distribute them amongst his friends—employers, employees, and capitalists aliko—and inform them that the selection was on a certain night, and he would have no trouble in being one of the selected if the recipients, or even 25 per cent, of them, turned out to the meeting. These are only a few of the facts elicited at the interview.

In faoe of these facts —that tho Liberal Association contained a large percentage of employers, that the number of members it had could not be ascertained, and that the only qualification necessary for membership was the payment of Is—was it any wonder that the Workers' Political Committee refused to abrogate its rights to such a body? If it had done so, what would the workers of Dunedin and suburb,? have said?

Thwarted by the Workers' Political Committee. the Liberal Association proceeds to solect its candidates. One of its rules says: " Any person . . . asking for the support of the federation shall give a written pledge to the effect that if not selected they will retire." Did any oiio of the three candidates selected ask for the support of the federation and give tliis written pledge? Marvellous to relate, not one of tho candidates gave this written—nor verbal, for that matter—pledge. _ They were never asked to do so. What is more, not one of their nomincos has subscribed to the platform of the Liberal Association, and I challenge the secretary of that Association or any of its members to prove that they have. Neither Messrs Millar, Arnold, or Chisholm has pledged himself to support their platform, yet those three gentlemen have been selected by this body. What reliance can be placed on a body like this? It seems to be a oase of not being able to get a man to • fit their platform, and sinking their principles as enunciated in that platform, and falling back on two of the Labour memI hers and one employer of labour without getting thoir sanction to be so nominated. I hope the workers of Dunedin will not be misled by a body which has so little principle as to do a thing of this kind. But. after all, what is this Liberal Association? Whom do they represent, and what is their membership? I have been informed, (but X cannot vouch for its accuracy) that

there were only 10 persons—six men and ' four women —at the meeting when the threo candidates were selected. This. I am convinced about, that their numbers are comparatively smal), notwithstanding the nominal fee of Is subscription, and according to their own showing they are composed to a large extent of employers; yet they come out with a great flare and try to make believe they are an influential body and thus get tho support of a number of electors who probably do not know any different. The Workers' Political Committee is composed of delegates from between 20 and 30 unions, and represents between 2000 and 3000 unionists, independent of the very large section of electors who are not organised, but who lovally support the nominees of tho Workers' Political Committee. This body took the voice of the unions affiliated to it, and these unions almost unanimously supported Messrs Millar, Arnold, and Barclay, who are consequently the Labour ticket, and I .hope the workers will not be misled by thinking that the Liberal Association's third man (Mr Chisholm) has any claim whatever upon thoir vote. Mr Chisholm makes a lot of being nominated by two unions. Would it surprise Mr Chisholm to know that the three Labour members received the support of about 20 unions each? Let it be 'distinctly understood that there is only one representative Liberal and Labour ticket—Messrs Millar, Arnold, and Barclay, —and I hope the Liberals and workers of Dunedin will remain loyal to this ticket.— I am, etc., R- Ferguson.