THE COUNTRY'S CREDIT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 759, 7 March 1910, Page 6

THE COUNTRY'S CREDIT.

A little notice appears to us to be due to the Hon. T._ Mackenzie's lengthy attack at Cheviot upon certain unnamed people who have been "discrediting our country abroad." It will be remembered that in his speech, which we printed on Saturday, he referred to certain newspapers published in London and in Washington. He unfortunately omitted to give the names of these journals, and his quotations from them were extremely meagre, so that we have no means of knowing whether the articles which they published v/arranted the Minister's indignaffiin. One of the statements to which 'he objects, however, as "a slander whicn should be repudiated by every lover of his homeland," is that New Zealand is "eaten up by officialdom as by locusts." That is certainly a strong way of stating the position, but will anybody really dispute the assertion that this country is overburdened with State officials 1 Has not Mb. Millar himself said that one-seventh of the population—l3o,ooo persons—are directly dependent upon the State'l And has not the cost of government -—the cost, that is to say, of the official Departments—increased from £1,998,716 per annum to £5,575,483 per annum under the Liberal Administration? Has not the Waed Government in three years increased the cost of 'the Departments from £4,252,233 (1905-6) per annum to £5,575,483 (1909-10)1 Mb. Mackenzie must surely see that a fact condemnatory of the Ministry is not a slander upon the homeland, and we are sure he must also realise that the habit of certain politicians of creeping for shelter under the mantle of the country's name is neither courageous nor edifying. Some Ministers, we know, appear anxious to lead the country to believe that the Government's friends have the monopoly of truth and patriotism, but since Mit. Mackenzie has had the special advantage of haying been at different times on both sides in politics, and also on the dividing fence, he at least should, be very careful in the handling _of this Ministerial weapon. It is interesting to note from the Minister's statement ■ that the articles objected to "were written in New Zealand," and he "had reason to believe that they were written in the same office." If the articles are really slanderous and untrue, they cannot be too strongly condemned. Unfortunately, however, Me. Mackenzie leaves us very much in the dark as to what they actually contain. Possibly he will see that after his very strong and unqualified criticism of them he owes it to the public to publish them in full. Moreover, as .he hints at a knowledge oi their authorship, he might also disclose that interesting piece of information. Having gone so_ far, the Minister can hardly refrain from taking the public more fully i"to his confidence without avousiiig suspicion as to the justice of his criticism.