Debating Club and Militant Unions

For the affirmative, Mr. Goddard justified militancy in unions after a historical development of their purpose for 10 minutes. Emerging from the past into the future only in time to hear the warning bell, he eloquently stated, in the brief time he had left, the fact that combinations of workers were vitally necessary to protect their own interests Mr. Garrett for the negative, based his case largely on the fact that militant unions were guilty of using force to impose their ideas on 'he community: such a method was incompatible with the structure of democratic method.

On this point he was sharply assailed by Mr. Bollinger, who stated that the absence of force and the attention to the workers' arbitration courts had brought little in return. The militant unions were at least able to prevent themselves from being ground under: and the grinding under of the workers could hardly be held to be in the best interests of New Zealand's prosperity.

Mr. Foy diverged from the strict paths of the debate to dwell (a) on the virtues of the nationalisation of the breweries and (b) the vice of too many hot baths per week. On this, the case rested for the negative.

Speakers from the floor were vocal rather than informative, eloquent rather than convincing, Mr. Walsh ("the Irish are the happiest people in Europe because of their constant strife") and Mr. Williams ("Unions are a standing agency for social criticism") were the two outstanding ones. Mr. Cook was logical and capable: Mr. Curtin rather stagy, unfortunately: Miss Pearce thoroughly pleasing in manner though not always in argument: Mr. [unclear: Newenham] waved the red herrings like anything. Most of the other speakers were far from memorable: some were much too convinced, too little convincing.

Of the summaries, Mr. Garrett's was certainly better than his first speech. He noted that by prefering to resort to the use of force the unions lost that weapon; and if in the future the Irritation caused against them by Press attitudes, plus the power of the state in the hands of the workers' opponents (armed with conscript troops) were to amount to an actual attack on the workers, then they themselves would be to blame if the only method left was to use force in answer. Force, he noted, in answer to a superior force.

Mr. Goddard, too, was a great deal better. His arguments were good—but there appeared to have been no reason why he should not have quoted the effect of militant unionism on the shipment of scrap metal to Japan before the war, it would have been a major argument.

After all this militancy, the negative and Mr. Cook won out in the opinion of the audience and the judge respectively.