A MEAN LITTLE CHARGE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14836, 29 November 1913, Page 10

A MEAN LITTLE CHARGE.

When, shortly before the British tennis team arrived in the Dominion, the Hon. P. M. B. Fisher stated that he, was going to spend his Christmas holidays in travelling with the visitors, and would travel at his own expense, we did not feel at all sure that some "Liberal" would not subsequently charge the Minister with amusing himself at the* expense of the country. Doubt was not lessened by the fact that a few weeks later the Opposition organ in Wellington referred to Mr Fisher as the "Minister for Lawn Tennis and Customs." Now the member for Avon has completely justified our misgivings by charging the Minister with drawing travelling expenses for his tour. The Opposition has been, guilty of so many mean and shameless forms of misrepresentation that it is impossible to say which is the worst, but for petty meanness this performance of Mr G. W. Russell is not easily surpassed. Here is what Mr Fisher said at the time:—

To obviate any misapprehension that may exist in regard to the matter [his holiday! I want to make it perfectly plain that I am not going to take my holiday at the public expense, but will accompany the English team as a private individual. In the face of this Mr Russell had the effrontery to charge Mr Fisher with having travelled at the public expense —a charge which, needless to say, is promptly denied. This is another proof, if proof were needed, that there is no weapon of political attack to which "Liberals , ' will not stoop, and that in dealing with, the Opposition no reliance can be placed on those considerations of fairness and straight dealing which ordinarily govern relations between political opponents. It completely justifies, if justification were needed, Mr Massey's hesitation in making a grant towards the purchase of land for the Elmn-ood Park. Wo were assured that no Opposition would

dream of making use of Mr Rhodes's connexion with the land, but after such a performance as this of Mr Russell's, can the Opposition be trusted at all ?

The Federation of Labour Sbubtless knows its own business, and it is not for us to quarrel with its choice of a candidate for the Lyttelton seat. Wβ fancy, however, that there will be general surprise- at the selection of Mr J. McCombs in preference to Mr D. G. Sullivan. The latter has been & faithful and constant worker in the cause of Labour for some years.

The statement by Mr Asquith that ho sees no immediate prospect of a settlement of the Irish question by consent has an ominous sound when taken in conjunction with his further statement that tho Government is not frightened by the menace of civil war. No true friend of Ireland can be otherwio than sorry that the Government should adopt this attitude, for civil war will be fatal, at least for one generation, to the ideal of a united Ireland. The London "Tablet" makes this point very clear- The essence of Mr Redmond's political faith, it points out, is that Ireland is essentially a nation, and if tho Ulstermen are eubdued by arms and Home Rule maintained on a basis of repression, "the whole glory of tho thing will bo gone, and triumph will be indistinguishable from failure." The Nationalists (the "Tablet" adds), unless they are ready to betray their own creed, must be anxious, above all things else, for a settlement which shall be accepted by all classes in Ireland, if not with enthusiasm, at any rate in a spirit which shall securo a fair trial for a great experiment. No doubt the resistance of North-East Ulster can be put down by force, but if ever in this quarrel Belfast has to mourn her young dead who died in vain, the Nationalists' hope for a united nation will havo received a setback which the efforts of a generation will fail to make good. If tho Government goes "full eteam ahead," and Ulster resists, the resistance must, of course, be broken at any cost, but it is greatly to be hoped that a settlement of the Irish problem will not come that way.

Tho fair-minded people in the Lyttelton electorate may eafely be trusted to take their opportunity to register their opinion of the tactics of those who are opposed to tho candidature of Mr M. J. Miller, as displayed by them at Woolston last night. It is not surprising that the Red Feds., who deny the right of others to do the work that they themselves will not do, should also deny the right of free speech to those opposed to tho Federation's aims and methods. We have assumed that the disturbers were the friends and supporters of Mr McCombs, for although the local "Liberals" attempted to deny freedom of speech to Mr Massey (to the great pleasure of the "Liberal ,, newspapers), we are ready to believe that it was Red Fedism rather than "Liberalism" that howled Mr Miller down. The friends of the Reform Party have no reason to be dissatisfied that Mr McCombs's friends should have so obligingly made it clear that the iteform Party is the guardian, amongst other good things, .of national service and of the peace and comfort of the community.

The ethics of rewards and their effect on dignity and self-respect are raised by the distribution of £10,000 in connexion with the famous pearl necklace case. Brandstatter and Quadratetein apparently belong to a station in life in which people do not accept ordinary rewards. That is to say, if either had found a purse containing £10, and had returned it to the owner, he would not have accepted the five or ten shillings which the owner was prepared to give to the finder. But they have no scruples against accepting £9000 for their share in the recovery of the necklace. This statement of the case, however, is not fair to them. They did much more than merely pick up the pearls and return them; they engaged in long and difficult negotiations, in which they displayed much skill and patience. One would like to know whether, if they had recovered the pearls without any trouble, they would unhesitatingly have taken the reward. The case of Home is different. Hβ picked up the stones in tho gutter and gave them to the police. Strictly speaking, he accepted £500 for resisting the temptation to steal, but the world does not judge such actions with much severity. If it did it would not give rewards of various kinds to men who simply do their duty. A writer in tho "Spectator," in dealing with this subject, mentions that in the light of the necklace case, he asked many men and women, all presumably of good social position, whether they would take a reward for finding lost property, and that almost all admitted that it depended on the amount of the reward. In other words, they considered it beneath their dignity to accept half-a-crown for finding a purse, but consonant with their dignity to take £1000 for finding valuable goods. It is illogical, but very natural, j

If Senor Zelaya, the ex-President of Nicaragua, is extradited from the United States to his own country, no insurance company would consider him as a "life." The Nicarasuans have a long score to settle with the man who ruled them with a rod of iron for sixteen years. Zelaya has been described as "a man of intense energy, of illimitable ambition, of calm and judicial clear-headedness when advancing, of primordial and ruthless savagery, when necessary, of undisputed courage, and equally undisputed cruelty." He fell foul of Great Britain, compelled the United States to intervene in Nicaxagnan affairs, and aimed at being Dictator of the whole of Central America. Hβ conceived the brilliant idea of giving the natives in the remoter districts to understand that in voting for a President they had to choose between three candidates—Jose , , Santos, or Zelaya; it was only in the capital that the President was known as Jose Santos Zelaya. These meek, illiterate natives, were tools in his hands, but his long rule came to an end at last, his fall illustrating the truth of the saying that one can. do everything with bayonets except sit on them. His life in Nicaragua to-day -would hardly be worth. a moment's purchase. In sixteen years a Latin-American Dictator can make many enemies.

Many people mast have wondered during the strike whether it can be possible that any of the trade unionists of the Dominion really believe the astonishing lies which are issuing so freely from the offices of the Federation of Labour. Yesterday we printed a Federation manifesto, in which "an emphatic- denial ,, was given to the statement that the Federation had refused

to submit tho 6trike to arbitration by Mr Justice Willi ams . The Federation also denied that Mr Massey had made the suggestion. To-day we prj nt a statement by the Defence Conn°itteo, in which documentary evidence is brought forward to prove the truth of the statement which the strike leaders deny. The Federation is really wasting its time and paper and ink: the public as a whole pays not the slightest attention to its manifestoes.