Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 17 June 1915

The PRESIDENT - Order ! That is not a point of order.

Senator Bakhap - I desire a retraction of the honorable senator's statement, on the ground that it is incorrect. If he wishes to know the facts, I may tell him that, unsolicited, many years ago, before the Labour party was in its present state-

The PRESIDENT - Order I The honorable senator is not entitled to make a statement at this stage, but as he claims to have been misrepresented, and takes exception to Senator Ready's statement, and as the Standing Orders compel ana honorable senator to accept the word of another honorable senator, I now ask Senator Ready to accept Senator Bakhap's assurance that what he says is incorrect.

Senator READY - I accept the statement of Senator Bakhap, but it is a wellknown fact that the honorable senator was in communication with certain people in the Labour movement-

Senator Bakhap - They communicated with me, and offered me a seat if I would stand for it. I refused the invitation because, as I explained to them, I was not a Labourite.

Senator READY - That is the honorable senator's statement. My statement is that the honorable senator was in communication with certain persons in the Labour movement, and it is well known that on a certain occasion he wrote to a Radical newspaper - The Monitor - with whose articles the only fault he found was that they did not go far enough in advocating Socialistic principles.

Senator PEARCE - Was he an I.W.W. man ?

Senator READY - He was a red.flagger. He sat with Senator O'Keefe at a conference of miners, .at which nobody waved the flag more enthusiastically than he did.

Senator Bakhap - The honorable senator seeks to bring forward mining questions arising out of a mining conference as an illustration of the accuracy of his statement. That circumstance evidences his sense of discrimination, and demonstrates his unfair attitude.

Senator READY - I was not connecting my statement with the incident referred to. .1 was merely showing that the honorable senator was at one time an advanced Radical, and that he has gone back on his principles. My honorable friend, Senator Guy, has rendered the Senate a service by showing people, who do not wish to be judged by the utterances of partisans, that accord- inn- to his own statements, Senator Bakhap is worse than a member of the caucusridden Labour party, because he is the bondslave of a fetish, of a capitalistic party that advocates certain things which he has to support irrespective of whether he believes in them or not.

Senator Bakhap - The same party to which the honorable senator referred dissolved six months later because of the very thing to which I have alluded.

Suggest corrections