The Daily News. MONDAY, MAY 31. LABOR AGITATORS EXPOSED.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 104, 31 May 1909, Page 2

The Daily News. MONDAY, MAY 31. LABOR AGITATORS EXPOSED.

We publish iu another column a conr-leously-wordod reply from the secretary of the Auckland Slaughtermen's Union in reply to our comments on WednM-1 day lust respecting the recent slaughtermen's dispute. We desire at the outset hoiwewr, to take exception to the mail" i ner im. wliAi-h our correspondent has misquoted our remarks, 'lie denies, for instance, that he or his colleagues bar., ever deserved to he dubbed "paid agitators, drones, loafers and impostor-,','' and proceeds to say that such epithets proclaim our columns to be anything ' but broad, fair-inj'ndod and .public-sp'rrit-

1 ed. We haive 110 wish to appear un ; eharitatic or vindictive, awl therefor I' prefer to accept the major portion o 1 our correspondent's letter referring I I tire events leading up to the dispute a truthful, hut we cannot allow palpal)': untruthful statements about ourselve to pass unchallenged. In the first place we were not speafdug so much of pal ■ ticular individuals as of tile system in & dividuals have fostered. In the seconi M place, we never referred discourteous!; || to the individual representatives ol tlr K union: we never us'ed the epithets "pal< ft a<ri!ti:itor-, loafers or hnposters." Thi | terms "distant drones, leaders, unioi I executive agitators and malcontents' I were sufficient lor our purpose, withou I having recourse t(0 the particular appel f lations as our correspondent wrongful!; & ascribes to us. Further, our conimen : on the case .was based on, the evidcnci adduced before tlhc Council, not on evi j dence which the union's representative far resisons of his own, chose to sup press, and which was not at oui (lis posal. If the Auckland executive wa; "sold" by the members of the loca union, s# alleged by our corrcspondcnttui allegation., by the way, that wc cuu not help thinking is probably not widi of the mark, in vfew of the soniewha extraordinary collapse of tllie union case—then the members of the loca union have no reason to feel proud o their action. It is possible, however that the alleged betrayal was more un intentional than designed. The fact re mafns that this case was gone on witl after tlic dispute bad beeu amicably set tied between the tocul slaughtermen am ttlie Borough Council. Who was' there atftur responsible for the "dispute," whej none existed, being proceeded with? Bit or did not the Auckland executive "e fuse to accept the agreement arrive! it between the Council and the meu be tt'usc the eonfereince was held withou -lie coai&cnt of the executive! VV'c an ipen to correction ('from more facts no ct disclosed), but our distinct opiuioi s sta.l that bite" malcontents i'u Auck and were solely responsible for the cusi iventually carried to the stage of ciU ;ion befflire the Conciliation Council iVtoate-ver may have bern the relationixSsting between 'lie local uiiiooi au< ;he Am-'kland headquarters, the latte nust accept the responsibility for ha i* ng brought forward a depute wlicr lone existed. If the local men were jliiid to their interests as to desire t< lave their wages reduced into line wit .hose ruling in Auckland, then the Aucii and Union, if they possessed ordinal', intelligence, Should Slave advised thei: igainst so unwise an action, instead o jilcouraging them. Putting a coinmoi sense interpretation on the whole o the facts, and admitting that the Auck land executive may ha.ve been "crueilj betrayed," as our correspondent puts iL ,t seems to us thmt the quality of tlio betrayal was in the local men declining to support before the Council the dispute in which 'they may have tacitly it'i|uieiced or been afraid to withdraw from, before the hearing of the case. BoWi parties, the local union and the executive, may have been equally at fault, but the explanations of ourcorrcb'pondnnl have failed in their object if tire intent'ton wias to findnce as to ieccde from the position we have taken in with regard "to'this unwarranted disnite. With tlie principles of unionism ■ve arc in sympathy; it is to tile abuse if the power of unions, a.s in the case uider review, that we take exception. 'Villi die gentlemen conducting the case >n the union's behalf we have no qn-nr-■el, and we may add thai had the same n™sure of common-sens*, tolerance and nodcration been exhibited by the Airckand executive as has been slhown by heir representatives before the Counil, the local "dispute" would never lave been heard of. Our only rc-ret is hat wc ciMinot -ay as much for our orrespoudeiitV sense of fairness repecting ourselves.