PUBLIC CRITICISM.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 654, 25 March 1914, Page 4

PUBLIC CRITICISM.

The letter on the subject of the main road controversy which appears in another column of this iaaue, and which is published in fairness to all parties concerned, has been rendered necessary in consequence of what may be termed hasty and ill-considered criticism of public men and public bodies. In this district conditions are unique. Progress has been so rapid and general that the district baß become populated witin a few years by people drawn from many different localities, who have yet to establish among themselves that confidence, and spirit of toleration, . born of longstanding acquaintanceship and association. Actions and utterances liable

to misconstruction and criticism, which, in other districts, among people who understood each other, would have little effect might easily be interpreted locally to the great disadvantage of the individual. It is this phase of the question which has prompted the writer of the letter published over the pseudonymn of "One Who Knows," to make clear his intention and object in writing the letter. Rumours have been circulated and adverse criticism of members and officials of the County Council indulg d in in a manner which has provided no opportunity to the persons referred to of refuting damaging statements, and it was the knowledge of this which probably prompted the County chairman to seek a definite statement from the writer of the letter referred to. That the definite statement has been made in a manly, straightforward manner is entirely to the credit of the writer, and is indeed the action which would be expected of him by friends and opponents alike. Something entirely different, however, are the actions of those who make attacks on public men by means of innuendo or general statements without giving the object of their criticism any opportunity of combatting Buch attacks. Men who are doing the work of the public, either in the legislature of the country ur as members of local bodies, are open to honest criticism at all times in respect to their public actions. Sucb criticism, moreover, ia wholesome, and is frequently an incentive to the men occupying public positions to exert their best efforts in the public interest. It ia a well recognised fact that the public man, however capable he may be, usually learns more valuable lessons from the criticism of his opponents than from the adulation of hia friends. But the system of criticism which revels in personal innuendos and Becks by the tongue of rumour and dark suggestion to discredit those who are performing the public work, is altogether to be deplored. That there is a tendency towards this style of criticism in all communities is an unwholesome fact in public life, the only redeeming feature being that the best element in any community never descends to such methods. The conditions of this district demand that the broadest possible spirit of toleration should rule'our citicism of public men. The public requirements of both town and country are legion. Progress is being made in all directions an 5 permanency of conditions will not be established for some time to come. There is ample work and opportunity for action in the publie ii.terest for all who derire to the march of progress. Co-operation should be the watchword, and the Bpirit of opposition should rarely be necessary It is to be devoutly hoped in the interests of the whole district that the spirit of co-operation will extend and that those who are conducting the work of the community will be spared all criticism which is not for a definite wholesome purpose, and which can be publicly justified.