MUCK-RAKING AND MUCKMAKING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1104, 18 April 1911, Page 4

MUCK-RAKING AND MUCKMAKING.

It is a common enough fact that some particular characteristic of a species may often be most clearly and strongly lVtarkcd in a, little known and unimportant member of that speeics. This is particularly true of the "Liberal" politician in New Zealand; for the more crude and

elemental the particular "Liberal" M.P. is the mora certain we are to find in him the char..cteristic that tho more highly developed of the same spccies arc generally able to hide or disguise. An excellent example of what we mean appears in a speech delivered at Amberley last week by Mr. G. Forces, the representative of Hurunui. Mn. Fokdes does not play any prominent part in politics, although he may be regarded as a serious rival of Mn. Bcddo as an unconscious humorist. His statement, for example, that "there had been no alteration in the Government's policy. from the time of John Ballance" is nearly as good as Mr. Bvddo's explanation that the Government has not changed its land policy, but merely "adjusted" it. JN T ow, the special characteristic of the Ministerialist that Mr. Forbes exhibits so clearly is not a very pleasant thing to see. He referred", with obvious pain, to Mn. Hike's charges, which Mr. Masse? had been unkind enough to explain to the people of Hurunui. "He was surprised," he said, "that Mn. Massev had thought it proper to refer to the Hike charges, as the introduction of the muck-rakc into the politics of this Dominion was a step.to be condemned. ... He did" not wish to revive this unsavoury business." Of course he did not. Your Ministerialist has a deep objection to the disinfectant of publicity. He cannot understand why people, instead of making a fuss when they notice a rather bad odour about tho premises of Liberalism, cannot leave the thing alone and pretend that everything is wholesome and pleasant. To begin with, of course," the Ministerialists knew that uncleannesses should be exposed, and merely feared the investigator. But to-day, so often has tho evil odour of jobbery assailed the public nostrils, and so often, there-, lore, has it been necessary for the perturbed .Ministerialists to declare that it is indcccnt to stir things up, that we really believe that Mr. Forces and others of his kind almost feel that it is improper to mention anything discreditable to Liberalism. It may perhaps help such people to remind them that there is a thing much worse than muck-raking, and that is muck-making. AVe shall cease to need the muck-rakc in politics when the muck-maker has gone out of politics. Mr. Forces also took occasion to refer .to the "Black" pamphlet. The lamentable blunder of Mr. Hounsby in his speech of some weeks ago has evidently been of profit to the Ministerialists. They are trying to be more cautious. Mr. Forbes, however, revealed the direction in which use will be made of the pamphlet. We quote this part of Mr. Forbes's speech, as reported in the Christchurch organ of the Ministry : In his North Canterbury tour Mr. Mass.ey had expressed his indignation that ho or his party should have been coupled with the name ol' tho Black pamphlet, a publication issued for tho purpose of persecuting tho Prime Minister. Ho (Mr. Forbes) did not for an instant connect Mr. Mas.-iey or the Conservative party j with that pamphlet in any way, but it was no use_ Mr. Massey trying to blame members of the Government party for connecting his name 1 with it. Who was to gain if Sir Joseph,'' Ward..was discredited? Nobody but the Conservative party, and it was Mr. Massey's duty when he saw matters of the kind being introduced into politics to have condemned and repudiated tho pamphlet. We arc not quite' surfi whether'Mn. Forbes has kept as far away from danger here as ho hoped and imagined he would.. In any-icvcnt what deserves notice is the fact that Mr. Forbes actually defends members of the Government party for connecting Mn. Massey's name with the pamphlet. If it means anything, Mr. Forbes's argument- means that while he and everyone else know the facts of the case, yet politics is politics, and you can't blame a politician for seizing the opportunity to. slander the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, you must not blame the Ministerialists for regarding the pamphlet as a perfect godsend to them. And who, let us ask, introduced the pamphlet into politics I Was it not Mr. T. E. Taylor, Mr. Forbes's ally? And did not Mr. Massey instantly do his duty of repudiation and condemnation ? Mn. Forbes illustrates very well the "Liberal" love for "hushing-up" and the lengths to which members of the Liberal party are prepared to go in an endeavour to score off a political opponent-.