THE GOVERNMENT, THE REPORTERS, AND THE PRESS AGENCY.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1344, 5 June 1878, Page 3

THE GOVERNMENT, THE REPORTERS, AND THE PRESS AGENCY.

An attack having been made upon the Press Agency by a section of the Wellington Press, in which Ministers are largely interested, Messrs Holt and McCarthy have addreased the following letter in reply to the “ New Zealander” ' TO THE EDITOB OF THE NEW 2EALANDEB. Sib, —As wo do not think any cause is strengthened by the use of intemperate language, we shall not follow your example in replying to your remarks about ourselves in the “ New Zealander ” of the Ist inst., but as you have made some very serious charges against us we feel called upon to answer them. We would, however, first of all reiterate and re-alurm all we said incur last letter. We did not say that Sir George Grey had “ succeeded” in keeping back other reporters than his own from the late Native meeting at Waikato. We said ho used every endeavor to do so, and we have the authority of one of Sir G. Grey’s colleagues for saying that it was not intended that any European but those of Sir George Grey’s own party should bo present at the meeting. It was also_ under undoubted authority, but from a different source, that we sent out the telegram you have quoted, ending with the words “Arrangements will be made for supplying newspapers with the results of the proceedings.” We, however, were asked by a section of the Press of the colony whether wo were prepared to supply an independent report of the Hikurangi meeting, or whether wo were going to b.e content with what the Government chose to allowto leak out ? Our reply was, that we should act independently of the Government. Wo thought, and still think, that the public would bo better satisfied to have a report of the proceedings from an entirely independent source, and accordingly made our arrangements (notwithstanding the expressed intention of thb Government) to obtain an impartial report. At the last moment, and just before Sir George Grey and Mr Sheehan left for the Waikato, reporters werp informed they would be allowed to attend. We cannot toll, nor do we ask if our telegram above referred to had anything to do with this change in the Ministerial programme, but we do know that if we had been obliged to wait like the Auckland reporters to the last moment, we should have been unable to supply to the public (ho report wo furnished. Wo shall not discuss the respective merits of your report and ours, for neither you nor wo can at present tell which is the most correct. Time alone will show. In our own opinion we think there is very Utile material difference between them, although you say “ they ” (our reports) were throughout strongly of a party “ or political character, and conveyed a very erroneous impression regarding the facts of the case.” But we have a word to say about the source frqs+t vhhh your reports were derived ; as you have ftssituyed to know and presumed to name our Waikato correspondent; We can have no hesitation in saying that the “ special reporter” of the “ Now Zealander ” was Mr Mitchell, of the “ Hansard” staff, and private secretary to Sir Q eo. Grey. We do not call in question the accuracy of hiq v.eports, although you, without the slightest show, of reason, have stigmatised ours as above quoted. But do you think that people gone-

rally, if they had known these facts, would not "have preferred reports from an entirely independent source, and have placed more reliance in them ? We have further to say this : that it is a now phase in the Government of New Zealand for the “ special reporter ” of a paper owned largely by the members of the Government to bo in the pay of the Government as private secretary to one of the Ministers, and to have his expenses paid by the country. Of course if Mr Mitchell had been employed to supply an official report to the whole Press of the Colony, it would have been a different matter altogether. Now we have a few words to say about something which you seem to think of the greatest importance, viz., a telegram about the desecration of a triumphal arch at New Plymouth. Wo believe the ipsissima verha of the telegram as we received it has been published by the sender, Mr Scffern, under his own name. Our Mr Holt happened to be iu charge of our office when it was sent in from the telegraph office. It reads as follows:—“The attempt to pull down the triumphal arch was a midnight freak of a few, but it is but right to state that neither Major Atkinson nor his friends (.sic) wore connected with it in any (sic) way. It was a stupid affair, and those engaged are now no doubt sorry they took part in it.” Well, he (Mr Holt) came to the very natural conclusion that if neither Major Atkinson nor his friends were connected with it, the statement previously circulated —viz., that they were connected with it —was untrue, and he inferred that it was merely the work of some larrikins. Mr Holt wrote a few words to this effect, and gave them to the “ Now Zealand Times,” but the telegram was thought of so little importance, politically or otherwise, that it was not telegraphed to a single paper in the colony, it was only given to the “ New Zealand Times,” as many other of our telegrams are given, because no wire charges were entailed on the proprietors. Had we desired, as you have asserted, to make political capital of the telegram, we should probably have sent it to the principal papers. That we did not so is clear proof that we had no such wish or intention. In conclusion, wo beg to say that so far as we are concerned this correspondence is now at an end. Yours, &c,, Holt & McCarthy. Wellington, June 2nd, 1878.