The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1913. THE FAIR DEAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8353, 13 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1913. THE FAIR DEAL

It appears to us that tho present is an opportune moment for submitting to the cold test of analysis, in tho light of greater knowledge and inview of the calmer political temper, some of the misrepresentation of Sir Joseph Ward that unfairly influenced tho public mind against him before he 'voluntarily relinquished office us Prime Minister of New Zealand. IVe propose to discuss this matter in a judicial spirit, relying upon the belief that Sir Joseph’s opponents who were directly responsible for this misrepresentation are honourable men, and that they are prepared to make acknowledgment of tho wrong they have perpetrated when it is logically pointed out to them, and that, also as honourable men, they will hasten to offer ample atonement. The greater part of this misrepresentation, we need scarcely add, appeared in the columns of tho newspaper “Dominion,” a journal which was established chiefly with the money of certain large capitalists and squatters for political purposes, and which is controlled by a directorate composed of men of standing, influence, and, we believe, honourable principles. It may be argued that this misrepresentation was tho work of paid writers, and that the director* could not then and cannot now be held answerable for it. To this tho reply is simple. The misrepresentation was certainly the work of paid Writers, but tho directors who paid and controlled them were directly responsible for every lino that was written, and must now be held liable at the bar of public opinion for those damaging statements and their consequences. For the future purposes of this analysis, therefore, we must go behind the barrier created by tho paid editorial “we” and discover who were tho individuals directing the operations of the “Dominion” newspaper at the period In question. The matter of editorship is immaterial to our argument. An editor writes as he is directed, and, in accepting a new appointment, frequently changes his political views with his position. That being so, it is with the directors wo are concerned. Now, on November 17th, 1911, the directorate of the “Dominion” was composed of the following gentlemen:— John Duthie, merchant, Wellington. Alexander Lawrence Herdman, solicitor, Wellington. George Edward Anson, physician, Wellington. James Macintosh, merchant, Wellington. Hon. Charles John Johnston, merchant, Wellington. Hugh George Williams, sheep farmer, Mastertou. Walter Clarke Buchanan, sheep farmer, Wairarapa. We have chosen November 17th, 191il, as the date for this particular analysis because on that day an article appeared in the “Dominion” containing certain abuse and misrepresentation of Sir Joseph Ward which we are convinced the directors will admit now, as honourable men, in the light of their fuller knowledge and calmer judgment, was quite unwarranted and unworthy of them even as newspaper directors and political opponents. We will quote one paragraph which is typical of the whole, and which, for its size, contains more misrepresentation than we have ever seen compressed into an inch of space. Here it is As we said yesterday, there is a very general suspicion that our baronet, his popularity gone, and the apolitical machine beyond his control, intends to leave tho country to get itself as best it may out of the difficulties he has made for it. It has served his turn; and like another plunging financier of a by-gone day, the late Sir Julius Vogel, he may find London, a congenial retreat. Now, in tho first place, Sir Joseph Ward has not left the country in the sense that is meant in this paragraph. Ho is certainly on a visit to England, presumably at the invitation of the King, in-order to be present at the ceremony attending the sailing of the new battleship. But Sir Joseph does not intend, and never did intend, abandoning either New Zealand or public life in this country. So much tor that point. In the second place, what is our present difficulty? It is the serious one, so far as;our public works policy is concerned, of raising a loan. Is Sir Joseph Ward leaving ns to get ourselves out of this difficulty as best wo can? Ho certainly is not. The press cablegrams have already informed us that he is doing all he possibly can, by interview and otherwise, to assist the Hon. James Allen and convince the, London investor that our borrowed money is invested in reproductive undertakings. Tho third point is that the difficulties Hon. James Allen is encountering are not of Sir Joseph Ward’s making. They were made for us in the pre-election period by the self-styled Reformers, who thoughtlessly, for campaigning purposes, damaged our credit in London by alleging that onr borrowed money had been squandered, wasted, and spent for political purposes- The Hon. W. F. Massey himself asserted that six and a half millions of borrowed money had been squandered to buy votes with. Therefore, we submit, with every confidence, that tho difficulties in the way

of raising tho loan were not of Sir Joseph Ward’s making, but that, on the contrary, ho is devoting all his energies and talent to the work of confuting these pre-election calumnies and restoring our damaged credit. One more point is sufficient for our purpose. The parallel drawn between two financiers is not a good one. Sir Julius Vogel was a Conservative like the “Reformers,” and Sir Joseph "Ward is a Liberal. But it is due to the memory of Sir Julius Vogel to say that New Zealand, at a depressed and critical period of her history, owed much of her salvation to tho genius and courage of tho man who ventured on that bold and confident scheme of borrowing and immigration. By the way. Sir Julius Vogel is dead, but his family are still alive and still sensitive to the stab of tho vituperative pen, but this fact did not deter the refined writer of the “ Dominion ” from assailing him as a financial “plunger,” a bitter term difficult to justify even in its application to a living politician in a position to defend himself. Now, then, in view of the palpable misrepresentation contained in the paragraph, we put it to Mr John Duthie, as a gentleman of honest, straight-forward dealing, whether he considers it a fair thing. Mr Duthie was chairman of directors at that moment, and in common justice to an absent man who has been cruelly misrepresented. we are impelled to ask him now whether he ought not to admit that tho damaging paragraph published ou November 17th, 1911, should bo retracted and apologised for. Time has proved it to be wrong, unfair, and unsupportable. Tho chairman of directors of the “Dominion” carries his share of responsibility for that paragraph. Is he prepared tp' let it stand, in tho face of a complete refutation, and continue to do its damaging work? Wo appeal to Mr John Duthie, as an honourable man, in tho interests of truth and good principle, and we feel sure we shall not appeal in vain. And Sir Walter Buchanan? He was a director, and therefore, wo submit, responsible for what appeared in the “Dominion.” We observe that his, Majesty the King has created him a knight, which is a proof that ho must bo an honourable gentleman, and consequently we appeal to him in every confidence as an honourable gentleman that, in view of the foregoing facts, a retraction and some measure of reparation are due to Sir Joseph Ward. If Sir Walter is the man we believe him- to be, the damaging words w;ill be withdrawn, and a due expression of regret offered. And Mr Charles Johnston? He is a director, and, we believe, a man with a keen sense of honour. We are convinced that, possessing this keen sense of honour, he will permit himself no rest until ho has put this matter right with his conscience. Mr Johnston is also a sound club man. We need scarcely remind him that if these statements had been made within the club precincts, instead of in the columns of a newspaper of which he was a director, there would have been only two alternatives. And the Hon. A. L. Herdman, another director, and therefore equally responsible? We admire Mr Herdman as a man of high principle and a fair fighter, and we are convinced that he would scorn to take an unfair advantage of a political opponent, and misrepresentation is unquestionably an unfair advantage. We suggest the honourable method to the Hon. A. L. Herdman, himself now a Minister of the Crown and therefore liable to misrepresentation, with every confidence that he will adopt it. And Dr. Anson, and Mr James Macintosh, and Mr H. G. Williams? They were all directors of the “Dominion,” hut nevertheless honourable men. We ivould impress upon them all the fact that Sir Joseph Ward has been cruelly wronged and misrepresented in a journal of which they are directors. Also, we would appeal to them to do the correct thing, and we know- we shall not appeal in vain. We have sown the good seed. What will the harvest be?