A CONTRADICTION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 340, 29 October 1908, Page 9

A CONTRADICTION.

ITO the Editor.) * Sir,—My attention lias been drawn to yesterday's issue of Tub Dominion, in which appears a paragraph stating that, when speaking at Manakau, I said I would support a proposal to increase the honorarium to JS4OO, and a subleader commenting on my alleged statement in not too complimentary terms, ami warning electors not to support candidates' holding my alleged views on this subject. I fully recognise that it is your business to play the Opposition gaine, and you undoubtedly do it for all it is worth. But you will concede the justice of my request that, notwithstanding your natural anxiety to damage my candidature and assist that of my opponent, you should keep somewhere within the region of accuracy. I liavo not said I was in favour of increasing the honorarium. On the contrary, I have said most definitely and unmistakably, at Manakau and on other platforms during the past few days, that I would not support a proposal for the increase of the honorarium to .£4OO or/any other sum. You are, of course, perfectly well aware that nothing you can now publish will completely undo the injury you have done me. But in common fairness you should not only publish this letter, but also correct your mis-statement in your leading columns.—l am, etc., W'. H. HELD. [The report published by us, and referred to by Mr. Field, was reprinted from a very sympathetic report of the candidate's meeting appearing ixi the " Otaki Mail," and if, as stated, it was a misreport of Mr. Field's utterances, we can only say that it was copied by us in good faith. The report of our contemporary read as follows:— "Mr. Field made a Btrong point of the honorarium paid to members of Parliament, saying he .did not consider .£3OO per year enough to adequately recompense members, and should a proposal be brought forward to increase the honorarium to ,£4OO, he I would support it." It is somewhat remarkable that the Otaki' paper slmuld misroport Mr. Field in this circumstantial fashion. In March last Mr. Field made certain strong references to Mr. M'Nab at Levin, and when the Minister resented these reflections Mr. Field asserted that he had been misreportod by the "New Zealand Times," despite the fact that that paper's report was declared to be correct by one of the most capable and reliable reporters on tile staff, whoso statement was substantiated by the report published by another Government journal. At the general elections three years ago, Mr. Field accused tho "Evening Post" of mutilating certain information supplied by him to that paper, and so damaging his candidature, and tho "Evening Post" produced the manuscript supplied by Mr. Field himself, and showed that ilr. Field had done that paper a grave injustice. Now Mr. Field is again in difficulties. It appears to be chronic with Mr. Field to be misreported. We should be sorry to do him injustice, and willingly publish his letter of contradiction. As to his references to this paper, wo must leave tho columns of the paper to speak for themselves. When the paper has opinions to express it expresses them freely. It can nt least claim that its tactics do not include intentional misreporling, nor yet cowardly innuendo.]