"ATTACKING THE DEAD."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 987, 30 November 1910, Page 6

"ATTACKING THE DEAD."

The rebuke which we administered to Sir Joseph Ward during the hearing of Mn. Hike's charges, for dragging in and sheltering behind the name of his late political chief, does not. appear to have' brought home to him the view which the public must take of such conduct. Anything less likely to appeal to the public's admiration than a politician sheltering behind a dead colleague would be difficult to discover. AVith most public men, we should hope, the impulse would bo quite in the opposite direction—to defend an absent colleague even at one's own cost. The charge made by Mr. Hine in the Flaxbourne case was that the Government of 1904 was responsible for certain things. Mn. Seddon's name was not mentioned, but Mr. Sedbon and Sib Joseph Ward w&re both members of that Government. Sir Joseph Wabd, however, when tho charge , was being investigated dragged. in Mr. Seddon's name wherever possible, just as the At-torney-General did during the Uppor House-inquiry. Sir Joseph Ward' asked question after question to show that Me. Seddon was the ac-. tive factor in all the negotiations relating to the Flaxbourne case; and! then, haying thus thrown the responsibility on his dead chief, turned and dared to charge Mr. Hike with, attacking a dead man. We do not think anyone but the most ignorant could be deceived by such tactics, and no one but the most callous could approve them. The writer "Oivis," • whose excellent weekly causorie in the Otago Daily Times needs no praise from us, in discussing the matter in a recent issue, quotes the newspaper ' report of tho Prime Minister's recent attack on "the men who are making this cowardly attack on a dead man," and proceeds ,to mako these observations:

Which amusing tantrum proceeds on tho assumption, that Mr. Seddon, being dead, is not only himself beyond the touch of criticism, but confers the same immunity on his whole Administration, including Sir Joseph Ward, who was a member of it. Which is clean ridiculpus. A public man in all his public actions i?, the property of the public, living or dead. The curious thing is that nobody in .the Committee was imputing, or wanting to. impute, anything discreditable to Mr. Seddon. At least so I make out. Hence the hollowness of the phrase "attacking a dsad man." It te sentimental claptrap, and it doesn't ring true.

Of course it does not ring true. The Prime Minister, is not so greatly concerned about Mb. Seddon as about.Mr. Seddon's first lieutenant. Let us qiioto a very good statement of the correct principles that should govern tho discussion of the actions of deceased politicians. Tho states ment we -refer to is as follows, and was made, as the language shows, by a mombor of Parliament. Although not very gracefully . expressed, the sentiments are sound, and make a crushing: robuko to the Pkime Minister's constant endeavours to represent as odious and contemptible anything that he distorts into "an attack upon a dead man." "Here it is:. "What kind of recorded history should we have about our kings and queens, many pf Whom are respected, if we were to have nothing about their bad deeds written after they were dead and buried? What is there in all. this talk about raking up the ashes of the dead? Take any history and you will find that in all ages them have been men who have com» mitted many dark deeds that were only discovered after the men themselves were dead and buried. Has every allusion to them been suppressed, and those referring to them twitted with 'raking up the ashes of tho dead , ? No. These deeds havo formed the subjects of many interesting books and romarkable records afterwards.

I have as much respect for the dead as any man, but I object to falso issues being placed before us on improper grounds of supposed sentiment, which almost tho continuous lines of history give many instances to the contrary."

We should add, perhaps, a word as to the author of these sentiments. His name is Sir Joseph Ward ; the extract quoted above is from a speech which ho delivered in the House of Representatives on July 17, 1896. It then suited his political purpose to hold the dead open to attack—today it suits him to take the exactly opposite view. And he thinks the country is so easily fooled.