Page:"Red"·Fed·Memoirs-Hickey-1925.pdf/65



These were the two main proposals of the committee’s report, and were debated at length and finally adopted without any material alteration. The somewhat ambiguous reading of the second clause was explained by Mr. Tregear, who stated that the committee had in its mind a weakness that needed to be remedied. Mr. Young, of the Seamen’s Union, had explained to them the difficulty of getting out ballot papers at short notice when members were scattered about in different ports in different countries. As soon as the notice of cancellation had been received and passed at a special meeting, it should be impossible for a case to be laid in the Arbitration Court, so as to embarass the union, but as soon as the ballot was sent out to cancel the registration, a few weeks would ensue before its return, and then the enemy had power in that interval to state a case in the Arbitration Court, which fettered a union so that it could not get its registration cancelled although the ballot was carried.

A resolution moved by Mr. H. Hunter, of Christchurch, that an invitation be sent to the Executive of the United Labour Party to send two representatives to the Conference completely changed the whole Labour Movement of New Zealand.

The resolution was heatedly debated, and was eventually carried, although opposed most strongly by the majority of the Federation’s representatives. The grounds of objection were two. One being that the Conference was industrial in character and that the presence of representatives of political bodies