The Dominion. THURSDAY, JANUARY I2, 1911. THE RADICAL'S METHODS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1023, 12 January 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 1911. THE RADICAL'S METHODS.

It will be remembered that on Friday of last week we had an article upon the failure <5f tho £5,000,000 loan,, and wo 1 concluded with a.reference to the then latest report of the prices of Australasian stocks, published on December 31. The following is the passage referred to;

In view -of the fact that one of our criticisms of tho loan was to tho effect that tlio loan is likely to daniago our market and raise for a long time the price New Zealand will have to pay for any new' borrowing at 3J per cent., Sir Joseph Ward might have explained why, at the last report (on Saturday last) [December 31] Now Zealand 3V per cent: stock was lower than the 3V per cent, stock of any of' the Australian States. • The -figures were: New South Wales, OS; Victoria, 98 3-Bth; South Australia, 9GJ; Queensland, 97 5-Bth; -West Australia, 07; Tasmania, 89; New Zealand, 95'3-Bth. This is lower than tho lowest figure ever recorded since the black.year 1893. Since 18'Ji Now Zealand 3J per cents, never wont below 05} until now. • This, wo presume, is ono ot the many splendid results of this brilliant loan.'

The Christchurch organ of the Ministry, which, wc saw a day or two ago, had misrepresented the criticisms of-'the British Financier, has, wo regret to say, worked itself into a passion over the passage quoted. It admitted, in an article headed "Conservative Methods," that New Zealand.'3l per cent, stock was lower than the 31 per cent, stock of any of the Australian States, which is tho whole point.' But it proceeded' to make against The Dominion a'charge of the utmost gravity,, as follows:

- But tho nicro facts-were not half sensatioiitfl enough for our contemporary. It was anxious to inako it appear that tho natural declino , had been ' a , disastrous slump, and without further ado it proceeded to,manufacture prices for tho Australian stocks 'on its own account. The Victorian 31 per cont.,-which is quoted at 98 3-Bth, for instance, really' stood, at OG.t; the Queensland,: which it quoted at 97 5-Sth, at 96; iiiul the Tasmanian, which it Quoted- at :93, ; within 30s. o£ Victorian i per cents., at 971.

And in a state of high excitement our critic proceeded to talk of "this daring attempt to mislead the public, wnich' is, wc should, think, without a parallel in tho annals of New Zealand journalism." )Vc are sure that such heat is very unhealthy. The fact is, ot course, that tho figures as we quoted them wore exactly as given in the cable message'appearing in our own and tho Evening Post's columns., If there was a mistake in one, or two of tho prices in the very long list of stocks, and wo . think there must have been, no honest newspaper would have suggested -anything but that, The Dominion and the Evening Post had made a trivial slip, And of course, as our Christchurch contemporary had regretfully to admit, even its own figures left untouched the two main points: (1)-that our 3l per ccnts.. were the lowest on the list, and (2) that they were lower than in /.any year since 1893. Now wc have a word to say on our own account about "Radical methods." Had our contemporary been in a cooler frame of mind, it would have scon that in its own columns on December 31 it gave the prico of New Zealand 3-1 per cents, as £95 155., whereas; as all the other papers show, they really stood at £95 7s. 6d. Moreover, it represented the Westralian 31 per cents, as only 15s. higher than the. New Zealand stock, whereas, as all the other papers show, they were 325. 6d." higher. Our readers will now see tho peculiar atrocity of our contemporary's, suggestion. Were we to follow its example, we should proceed to talk of fraud and unscrupulousness and the annals of journalism and all the rest of it. But as a matter of fact, we know quite well that these were innocent and unintentional slips, just as our critic knew that its violent charge of fraud 'against us was unwarranted. In the meantime, while wc absolve the Christchurch paper of any bad intention at all in its own mis-statements, wc stand charged by it with evil intent- in making trivial errors of a similar sort. No apology, of course, will be forthcoming from our critic, but we think wo may count upon its attempting to display some earn and a little continence in its criticisms in future.