[VAQ]|

[VAQ]|

[VAQ]|

[VAQ]| [VAQ]|

[VAQ]|

Mr. Hilton is annoyed ~~ in fact, sickened ~~ at my [VAQ]| ~~ at my That [VAQ]| phrase comes well from the secretary of an organisation formed [VAQ]| to support the arch-tyrant of Australia ~~ the man who has [VAQ]| abused the censorship, tampered with the mails, held a pistol [VAQ]| over the ballot-box, and connived at the formation of armed [VAQ]| bands of hooligans to usurp public authority and forcibly silence, [VAQ]| the anti-conscription cause. Thank goodness, Mr. Hilton has [VAQ]| retracted from such methods, and in the concluding lines of his [VAQ]| reply to my article on The Lost Leader, [VAQ]| graciously allows that the anti's have a right to their views. Mr. [VAQ]| Hilton claims that Hughes, in seeking to introduce conscription, [VAQ]| only sought to give effect to a plank of the platform. Admit it, for [VAQ]| the sake of argument. IN MATTERS AFFECTING THE [VAQ]| PLATFORM, Labor members are bound to act in accordance [VAQ]| with the decisions of caucus! Hughes never convinced the caucus [VAQ]| ~~ never received their sanction for his action. He left and defied [VAQ]| the caucus, and could only expect one fate at the hands of the [VAQ]| party. Out of Mr. Hilton's own mouth he is condemned. No [VAQ]| doubt our old friend will now fall back on the ground that Mr. [VAQ]| Hughes, knowing the facts, advised, in a moment of peril, for the [VAQ]| good of the country. Again, he knew no more of the facts than [VAQ]| his Government, no more than the caucus, for he swears he told [VAQ]| them all. And from neither could he get a majority sanction. The [VAQ]| utmost he could do was to get a referendum agree to. And there, [VAQ]| despite suppression, tyranny, and censorship he failed again. And [VAQ]| that failure is remarkable. [VAQ]| says Mr. Hilton, [VAQ]| Where are they? Where were their votes on [VAQ]| October 28, when the industrial electorates throughout the five [VAQ]| Eastern States (where the Hughes tyranny was broken down) [VAQ]| voted NO with substantially the same convincing majorities as [VAQ]| was their wont, in former years, to elect the Labor candidates? [VAQ]| Where have their votes been on numerous occasions since, when [VAQ]| they might have altered entirely the compositions of the Labor [VAQ]| Councils, Conferences, and Executives ~~ or "Juntas?" But these [VAQ]| representative institutions, the personnel, of which can be altered [VAQ]| at the will of the rank and file, and at practically any moment, are [VAQ]| today as unanimous as ever in their hostility to Hughes. Not a rift [VAQ]| or chink in the armour. Where is the "split", Mr. Hilton? Echo [VAQ]| answers, where? Today, as ever, the Hughes Party consists of [VAQ]| disgruntled remnants of parliamentary parties, together with a [VAQ]| waning minority of Western Australian unionists, who still groan [VAQ]| under the tyranny of Press and Censor. Call that a Niagara? No, [VAQ]| sir ~~ the falling trickle in a channel that has been cut off at the [VAQ]| sluices. The trouble is, that Mr. Hilton and other people who talk [VAQ]| of a "split" in the Labor party, are obsessed with the worship of [VAQ]| politicians. Politicians are well enough in their place, but to [VAQ]| imagine that a hundred politicians are everything and the [VAQ]| organised working class nothing is to lose "both sense of [VAQ]| proportion and breadth of view." My original article contended [VAQ]| that, despite its size, the present secession had salient points in [VAQ]| common with all previous secessions. And Mr. Hilton harps [VAQ]| away on my alleged failure to recognise the size of his precious [VAQ]| protégé. Why not defend Hughes on the charge of adopting [VAQ]| Liberal methods, phraseology, and point of view? Why not [VAQ]| defend his action in holding pour-parlers for the purpose of [VAQ]| forming a "National Government," in which the arch-enemies of [VAQ]| Labor would sit? Imagine a Labor man as Prime Minister, [VAQ]| accepting Iceberg Irvine as an Attorney-General. If Labor had [VAQ]| left Hughes, not Hughes left Labor, Hughes would still think and [VAQ]| act as a Labor man ~~ an aggrieved Labor man, perhaps ~~ but, [VAQ]| instead, he thinks, talks, and acts like the veriest of Liberals. [VAQ]|

[VAQ]|

The Press accept him as anti-Labor, Cook and Irvine accept [VAQ]| him as anti-Labor. His own actions proclaim him anti-Labor. The [VAQ]| unanimous verdict of Labor has declared him anti-Labor. And [VAQ]| with him, as Mr. Hilton sapiently remarks, go all his followers, [VAQ]| including the mythical "hundreds of thousands." As for the W.A. [VAQ]| Federal members who followed Mr. Hughes, it would be [VAQ]| premature to call them lost. Pending the expiry of the month's [VAQ]| grace allowed them to return to the fold, we may regard them as [VAQ]| strayed.

[VAQ]|

The position is this: I lay specific charges of talking and [VAQ]| acting against Labor at the door of the Hughes Party. The actions [VAQ]| admittedly arise, more or less directly, out of the conscription [VAQ]| campaign. Mr. Hilton's reply, boiled down, is that the said party [VAQ]| consists of over a hundred politicians. Now if a hundred ex-Labor [VAQ]| men talk and act like Liberals, does it make them any less [VAQ]| anti-Labor than a single individual, acting in a similar manner, [VAQ]| would be? Mr. Hilton accuses me of lack of logic, but takes care [VAQ]| to escape a return of the compliment by dodging altogether the [VAQ]| point at issue, which is, are Hughes's actions Labor actions? Not, [VAQ]| how many followers has he?

[VAQ]|

Logic! Breadth of view! Really, these charges are cheaply [VAQ]| made. Better far that Mr. Hilton and his associates should defend [VAQ]| Mr. Hughes on the matter of his latest betrayal ~~ the abolition [VAQ]| of preference to unionists ~~ than attempt to bolster up their own [VAQ]| case with cheap slang-whang against their opponents.

[VAQ]|