AN ANGRY PREMIER

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 506, 13 May 1909, Page 6

AN ANGRY PREMIER

; The Prime Minister is, again very much^annoyed with The Dominion, and, in his anger, he has been indiscreet. He has charged a certain gentleman, whose namo apparently he did not venture to state, with using the leading columns of the Opposition journal in Wellington, to embarrass the Government at. a time when it was carrying through important financial transactions. As the. Prime Minister persists in referring to this paper as the Opposition journal, it is to be assumed that his reference is to it. We have remarked that Sir Joseph Ward has been indiscreet in making the: statement mentioned above. Wo might ' have used \a, harsher term. It will suffice, ' however, to say that if the Prime' Minister was referring' to The Dominion, there is not one word of truth in' his statement so far as this paper is'" concerned. The paper .has itself freely /, criticised - the wasteful financial administration of the Government,', and the justification of its criticism may bo found in the fact that the Prime Minister himself : has- now' been forced to follow the course which the paper has long suggested was necessary in the best interests of the colony. Moreover, if the criticism complained of was not accurate, why ; .has. not Sir Joseph Ward been: able to demonstrate it? Why does he.persist in abusing the paper instead of attempting to prove it wrong"l Sir Joseph, Ward is,quite well aware that he'cannot dispute the figures which, from time to time have been published in our leading columns to expose the waste and extravigance of Ministers. But, it, Ib*. unwise, of him to iso plainly' show his annoyance at being placed' in this unhappy. position, more especially as'ho has no one but himself to blame for it. Even how he has not dared, to place before'the-"public the 'details' of tho expenditure for the pa^t' year;' 'We,shall have something to say on that subject lator, but in the' meantime we must express our regret that' the Prime Minister's antagonism'to this paper -should have led. him into making an accusation, the seriousness of which he 'probably does not fully roalise, and which is utterly without foundation. Sir Joseph Ward should realise that' the time has gone by when it was a sufficient dofenco of maladministration to abuse the critics of the Government.' The public want the facts of the position—and they are going to have thenv irrespective of the feolings of the Prime Minister or anyone else.