THE PAMPHLET INCIDENT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 926, 3 December 1910, Page 3

THE PAMPHLET INCIDENT.

STATEMENT BY THE OPPOSITION ORGANISER. FRIENDS OP THE GOVERNMENT. USE THE PAMPHLET AGAINST THE OPPOSITION. Writing to Thursday’s Wellington Evening Post, Mr R. R. Martin, Opposition Organiser, says: “I shall be glad if you allow me the necessary space to reply to the statement made by tho Right Hon. the Prune Minister in reference to my connection with tho pamphlet which has lately been given so much notoriety. The pamphlet published by Mr Victor Draund was given to mu in Southland on 15th September, 1907. 1 skimmed through portions of it in the train on the following day, and also in the evening at Gore, and to the best of my knowledge there were only four men who knew that 1 had even seen tho pamphlet. On my return to, Wellington on 29th September, 1 was informed that Sir Joseph Ward knew that I possessed a copy, which 1 was using for political purposes. 1 explained my connection with the pamphlet to Mr A. L. D. Eraser, who was at that time member lor Napier, and asked him if he would convoy to Sir Joseph my assurance that 1 had never used tile pamphlet in public and never would use it to injure him, either privately or publicly. Mr Eraser told mo lie had seen Sir Joseph on my behalf, and lie (Sir Joseph! willingly accepted my statement, i am glad to say that since that lime, which is now considerably over three years, 1 have never even handled the pamphletwu question, ami am much surprised that the I’rimo Minister, after having accepted my explanation, should have made the statement which he did.

“Coming now to the pamphlet of more recent issue,l challenge any one to say that I have ever spoken other than in terms of strong indignation in regard to those who art' responsible for its publication and distribution. In Auckland during the last b\-election 1 was approached by some one connected with the pamphlet and asked if 1 would supply a list of names of people in the other provinces who would assist in the sale ol the book. 1 made it very clear that 1 would have nothing to do with it. In July of this year 1 received a communication from Mr W. A. Quin, of Hawera, who stated that there was a rumour to the effect that the Reform Party had some indirect connection with the pamphlet and hoped it was not true. My reply, written on 23rd July, stated that ‘neither the New Zealand Political Reform League, uor any member of the Reform Party, have any connection with the pamphlet.’ in Hastings, during the Hawke's Bay Show, 1 was accosted by a man who was selling the wretched things, and when asked to buy one I told the vendor I would like to see him put in gaol for selling them. Eying rumours and statements have been persistently circulated to the ell'ect that the Opposition were assisting, linanciully or otherwise, with the production ot the pamphlet, and it was only a desire to avoid giving undue publicity to the pamphlet that prevented us from publishing an open denial. A persistent attempt has been made by friends of the Government to use this pamphlet against the Opposition for political capital, knowing wall that we would stand discredited in the eyes of the public if we stooped to despicable tactics of that kind to injure the party in power, and 1 cannot let the opportunity puss, which has arisen unsought by us, of again disassociating the Opposition in every way from any connection whatever with the publication of the pamphlet, which has now achieved so much notoriety.”

"CHEAP CYNICISM.” .WO "11 LG All DOUBT.” Referring to the pamphlet incident editorially the Wellington Evening Post "Wednesday was almost monopolised by a mean, unclean pamphlet, to which no decent New Zealander has given a second thought, beyond a feeling of contempt for the compiler and sympathy for the Prime Minister, who had been so maliciously attacked. In an ill-consider-ed moment Mr T. E. Taylor had introduced this sordid publication for the sake of uttering a condemnation, and the Prime Minister followed with a. reply to tho allegations sot out in the pamphlet. "We regret that Sir Joseph Ward considered that he was impelled to offer a. defence for which the preponderating healthy proportion of Xow Zealand s population had not called. The forcefulness of the speech was admirable, but, while giving him all credit for its quality. we still contend that it was not necessary. We do not question Sir Joseph's sincerity in his belief that Providence had intervened to ruin his enemies of IB9b. one by one. till the tally was fourteen, but such a statement, in the course of a debate which has run on party lines, was unpleasant. The Prime Minister also made another mistake. He appeared to have a linn belief, based on flimsy evidence, that the Opposition was associated with the dissemination of the disgusting pamphlet. Indignant denials were promptly recorded by Mr Massey and his supporters, but their repudiation was greeted with cheap cynicism and vulernmenfc side. This stupid insistence on tho Opposition's guilt is too grotesque for serious discussion by sane men, "Hence through a long night the House was obsessed by the pamphlet which had diverted the course of the debate proper. Much arrant nonsense was spoken, and gar doubt by some members on the Govthe undignified partisan controversy was worse- than useless to the people who have to pay for it.”