OUR WAR CORRESPONDENT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1722, 7 June 1917, Page 4

OUR WAR CORRESPONDENT.

The Christchurch Sun comments as follows concerning the correspondent who was foisted upon the New Zealand Press on the recommendation of some of the Reform newspapers: — What precisely is the matter with the N.Z. Official War Correspondent 1 ? Whether he is muzzled, dr ill, or, like Baal of old, merely sleepeth, we go weeks without a dispatch at all —and then are solemnly assured by cable that a prisoner brought recently to the New Zealand lines had been six times rejected for heart disease. The moral of the enemy is not good —we have heard it before, Mr Ross —so very bad indeed, in spite of the evidence of Bullecourt and Eresnoy, that only thirty volunteers could be found for a raid on the New Zealand position. Then we are told that there are aircraft on the Western front, and that whenever lights "occur above the lines, “the honours are invariably with the British.” Shattered moral in the clouds as well! Most terrible of all, however, is the destruction of (he New Zealand guns. After a heavy bombardment of our lines one night, our gunners returned the lire —they actually returned the lire, keeping it up, too the tigers —till they made the enemy —■ “very uncomfortable”! Poor Hindenburg! But surely it is time to protest. If the censorship is so tight that our duly accredited representative is reduced to gazing rapturously at; the pretty little Hights of our airmen it might be better o abolish the office of correspondent altogether. It is not fair to Mr Ross, and it is most unsatisfactory for New Zeal d, that most of our news should come through indirect: channels. Has the Dominion no rights in any way •ummensurate with the services and sacrifices she still so freely offers? Why should Mr Philip Gibbs, say, as at the Dardanelles it was Mr Ashmead Bal’tlett, communicate more Dominion news to London than Mr Ross is permitted to release for Wellington ? Even if one admits, as one may without rudeness or slight, that Mr Ross is neither a Gibbs nor u Wilson Young, it is obvious that he has been placed in an impossible position. But New Zealand wants to know why. Whether the matter be regarded from the point of view of justice to our correspondent or of docent consideration for the relatives and friends of the Dominion’s fighting troops, it is time our Government “asked for more.”