SIR J. G. WARD & MOB RULE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1895, 1 November 1913, Page 7

SIR J. G. WARD & MOB RULE.

PRESS CRITICISM. (By Telegtraph..—Special OorrceponterU Chrlstohurch, October 21. Tho "Lyttelton Times," while mildly reprobating the- strike, is devoting itself to creating prejudice against the Government. Its mothods are indicated in tho following rebnko by tlio "Press' : —"An • Opposition journal which refrained from uttering a word of counsel or protest in regard to the proceedings of tbo' Wellington waterside workers while- thero was a chance of such counsel having any effect lias plucked up its courage when it is too late, tho mischief having been done. It winds up by saying 'it is obvious that little is needed now to precipitate a disastrous suspension of work in all tho ports, and in tlio circumstances a judicious and tactful word from tho Prime Minister might niako all the differenco between peace and war.' Tlio suggestion, of courso, is that Sir. Masscy has been perfectly supine, taking no pains to bring about a settlement, yet the writer must have known perfectly well that at-a time when he was overwhelmed with .Parliamentary business 51 r. Mnssev had boon labouring unceasingly to brum about » sottlmnont of tlw labour trounla. Tho v<mi P«ww whi«s »rao-

tscally accused him of withholding the judicious and tactful word recorded in its news columns tho fact that for hours on tho previous day he presided over a conference working to bring about a settlement, and that tho conference- proved abortive because the men refused every effort at conciliation, by and by, wo suppose, tho public will bo told that the whol'o trouble arose because of tiiis absence of the-judicious and tactful word from Mr. Massoy. Tins is quite characteristic, especially as coming from tho paper which carefully withheld its own"judicious and tactful word until it was too late to be of any effect." The "Press" also deals with Sir Joseph Ward as follows:—"Wo feel bound to say that Sir J. 6. Ward is not doing his party any good service by his manner of discussing tho disturbances. A couple of days ago he made a speech, the effect of which was that the Huntly miners were justified, and when tho facts as supplied by tho Labour Department wero stated by the Prime Minister ho sought to excuse himself by saying that he had only repeated what some informant had told nim. This 'informant' is evidently making the most of Sir Joseph Ward, who sought yesterday to suggest that in the fracas in the Post Office Square tho blame rested with tho constables. He is perfectly entitled to ask for information, of course (and also if ho thinks it important, to let the House know that he disapproves of wrongful action), but ho chose a very injudicious way of going about it. He ought not to circulate, and half support, the tales of his peculiar 'informant.' Perhaps •some of his friends may advise him that if he wishes to know the facts he will' do better merely to ask for them— otherwise he will run tho risk of being regarded by 'Liberals' and Reformers alike as less unsympathetic towards mob rule than the rest of us. t No doubt, however, ho means well."