The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1911. TRUTH AND ABUSE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1219, 30 August 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1911. TRUTH AND ABUSE.

Sir John Fixdlay seized the occasion of the congratulations extended to him by his fellow-members of the Legislative Council yesterday to indulge in one of. those little lccturettes for which ho is becoming noted in which ho lays down quite admirable precepts for other people to follow. It has never been very clear why Bin John Findlay has considered himself qualified to admonish and instruct the less perfect of his follows, but we take it that the explanation lies in his modest admission of yesterday that "he thought he could say he had not left the path of rectitude in public or in private life!" It is to be assumed fiorn this remark that the new knight quite recognises that he is the very superior person his friends are so ready to proclaim him to be. In the circumstances it is perhaps not unnatural that ho should feel that his purpose in life should bo to endeavour to elevate to his own lofty level those who, unlike himself, are handicapped with the little weaknesses and failings which the common order of mankind is subject to. In his lccturetto or homily of yesterday Sib John Findlay discoursed on criticism. Being so far removed from criticism himself he of course might be regarded as able to treat the subject from a quite disinterested standpoint. But strange to say if would appear that even tho most immaculate of politicians are susceptible to criticism, and possibly that is the reason why the lecturctte of yesterday calls for a little comment. The new knight, who said ho had suffered himself, took exception to press criticism "which, though not coarse or denunciatory, hinted at corruption and attributed evil motives and perverted men's minds." This is just the sort of thing one would look for from one who had never strayed from the path of rectitude and we have no doubt that a great many people who cannob lay claim to the same high virtues would also give it their approval. It is a wrong thing no doubt to hint afc corruption and attribute evil motives and pervert men's .minds. But Sir Joiin Findlay, in his simple innocence perhaps does not quite realise that when he casts a reflection on the press of the kind quoted above without advancing any evidence to show that such methods of criticism have been practised he is liable to be accused by scoffers of doing the very thing he condemns.

We of course know very well what the learned and titled leader of the Nominative Chamber really means when he makes his protest against "hints at corruption" and the "attributing of evil motives." What he wishes to convey to the public is that hints at corruption and suggestions of evil motives are made to damage the Government and that they are without foundation. What he really objects to, and what be and his colleagues fear, is the interpretation that is quite reasonably and quite properly put on the actions of the Government, i'or instance, when the Government, after the elections of 11)08, set out to dismiss public servants right and left, they claimed that they had made an annual saving amounting to a certain sum. Hut they refused to supply to Parliament a list of the names of the men whose services had been dispensed with, and they refused to give, the names tj£ persons why had 1 since been appointed to the service.

It was contended that the alleged rodvnehmenfc was largely bogus and that serious injustice had been done in not reinstating men »\vho bad been dismissed in preference to taking on outsiders. Why did Ministers refuse Parliament what it had every right to know! What had they to conceal about the new appointments since the retrenchment! Picture the horror of Mia self-constituted guardian of public morals at such a question being asked—assuredly it attributes evil motives. But which is the greater offender against the public interest, or to use the words of Sir John Findlay, "public purity"; the Ministry which hides away information concerning the administration of the country's affairs which Parliament and the country arc entitled to have, or the newspaper which exposes this improper conduct of the Ministry ? Take another case: The Ministry has for the past few years refused to give particulars of the cost of loan flotations—commissions paid, expenses, etc. Why? There is no earthly reason why the Government should consider that it is entitled to refuse to give this information to Parliament. Previous Governments have always given it. Why, then, does the Ward Government (lout Parliament and defy precedent? Is it so atrocious a thing to charge the Government in such circumstances with desiring to-cover up their loan-raising methods? Is it not a public duty for the -press, as well as politicians, "as sentinels of public purity"' to expose such conduct however unpleasant the suggestion underlying the behaviour of the Government may be? Of course it is. And so with the attempts to corrupt the electorates with such transactions as the Mokau land sale; and with tho sort of humbug talked by the Attorney-General in the North of Auckland when he declared that one of the planks in tho policy of the Government was "access to communication and transportation free where possible and where not at the very lowest rates of carriage for man and. his produce the State could afford"—a declaration made in defiance of the fact that his colleague, the Minister for Railways, was raising railway fares and increasing the rate of carriage. It i s these exposures—it is this criticism—that the Government fears and resents and strives its utmost to stifle with lecturettes and homilies and plausible bunkum about "detractors" and ''stabbcrs in the back" and all the rest of it. The titled leader of tho Upper Chamber, like other Ministers, confuses truth with abuse, as Mr. Herdman put it in bis speech at Northland on Monday. We are very glad that the members of the Kcform party do not intend any longer to leave unchallenged the persistent efforts of Ministers and their friends to say that they_ indulge in "personalities." Ministers and Ministerialist newspapers and politicians never dream of giving particulars of their charges in this respect, because there are no particulars to giye. They trust simply to the force of general assertion and vague innuendo. In the meantime, as we have said, we invite the Attorney-General to descend from_ the general to the particular. When he has done so, we shall be inclined to give more serious attention to his amusing lecturette upon the duty df the press.