THE "LIBERAL" WAY.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14839, 3 December 1913, Page 11

THE "LIBERAL" WAY.

TO THE EDITOR OP "THE PRESS." Sir, —A letter appears in your paper this morning over the mysterious nom-de-plumo "Disgusted." As it refers to a letter of mino in your morning contemporary, I would like to reply. In tho first place, your correspondent states that 1 repeated and commented upon a libellous statement referring to Mr X>avid Jones, which appeared in the "Time 3." Statements like this, of course, are only to be expected from the half-informed and onesided readers of your paper. The paragraph which appeared in the "Times" and caused all the bother, stated that Mr Jones said at the meeting of the Women's Reform League that the Massey Party had found out things about Sir Joseph Ward since they came into power, which they would not like to print. The secretary of the Women Reformers, in a letter to the "Times," explained that Mr Jones simply stated that ho bad met gentlemen in Sir Joseph Ward's own electorate who had said things about Sir Joseph Ward's action in the present crisis that would not- bear printing or repeating to that meeting of women. Of course, £he editor of the 'Lyttelton Times," with his usual courtesy, immediately apologised for his mistake.

Now, sir, I deny that I repeated a libellous statement. I simply repeated and commented on the version of Mr Jones's sooech as supplied by the secretary of the Women's Reform League and by himself. Furthermore, I would like to inform your correspondent that I rely on the 'Times ,, to give mc an unbiased, fair, and unpartisan version of anything affecting the workers. "When T want io read the distorted and biased way in which the monopolists and other greedy and selfish indivHoals regard the worVers' actions, I read the Christenurch "Press." —Ymrr*. etc.. JAMES DEVERET7X. PwemDor 2nd. PS.—I 3o not think mnch of Mt Jones's Wends, who say things that wtH nrrt T>«ir -nnTiting or repeating to the Women's Reform League. [Our correspondent should remember that tho offending paragraph was printed without any attempt being Erst made to verify it in a proper way, and also that the journal which he so much prefers refused to print Mr Jones's own statement until its omission to do .'o was commented upon in "The l?ress."—Ed. "The Press. "1