The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1905. MR MASSEY AND THE PRESS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7806, 26 April 1905, Page 2

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1905. MR MASSEY AND THE PRESS.

• —— - In the course of his recent address at Dunedin Mr Mussey amply demon-

strated that if the colony is in want of a romancer to nil the office of Premier then he (ills tho bill. It was somewhat unfortunate lor him that in his desire to make startling statements he should have chosen the newspaper Press, or rather that portion of it which does not advocate his policy for his object of attack. Jt was also extremely unwise nnd injudicious of him to make such absurdly reckless statements in his speech, especially as the slanders can so easily be refuted. Two of Mr Massey's reckless charges the integrity of the Government distinctly involve the honour of newspaper men. Take the first :—" The men who were appointed to the Council were men who had influence behind them. The Premier was particularly sweet on newspaper proprietors, and he (Mr Masscy) had been given to understand that there were about six newspaper men in Dunedin looking forward to appointments to the Council." As it is not reasonable to suppose that Mr Massey referred to Opposition journalists he was, as tho Dunedin Star puts it, either exercising his considerable powers .of Invention, or indulging in a very sorry joke. He appears to have accustomed himself so thoroughly to the practict of imputing unworthy motives that he is quite unable to entertain the possibility of a Minister, or a Government supporter, or a Liberal journalist being actuated by indejiendent considerations. Of the prosent Legislative Councillors appointed by the Soddon Government not more 'than four—Messrs FeMwick, Jones, Twomey and Carncross—could be described as newspaper men, and two of these at least cannot be said to ha.\c been promoted on account of press services. It is evident that Mr Massey in his chagrin at the criticism bestowed on him by the Independent press is trying to retaliate in his characteristic manner. Nof consent with this indictment, Mr Massey further declared that, an a rowult of tlovornment patronage (practically Oovermnent purchase), " a class of writers had "grown up to write to order, —to '•write down the Opposition at every "opportunity, and to write up the Government," and then he repeUt-il the old complaint regarding the ullegetj unfairness of the allocation of Government advertising. Me quoted a lew figures, showing (as he declared) that ''tii,<> pxpondilurc of "the taxpayers' money w»s no); puifjo v-in the interests of (he people, but "with a view to purchasing sup"port for the party in power." It is only necessary to look at the return of the amounts paid to the leading newspapers out of the Consolidated Revenue for 1903. and 1003 Respectively to lind conclusive of t|jc unfounded nature of Mr Massey's staUmitnt, On the contrary, instead of the figures showing any evidence of partisanship., they disclose the fact that the Opposition press has the advantage as against that avowedly supporting tho Government. The two previous years show a similar record, so tftaf ij, is not unreasonable to assume the .ojjier and still more serious charges which he brings against tha inteuf»i.ty of the Guvei-pment could be shown to be equally flimsy, if only he would condescend to formulate his evidence. There is no reason why the game should not bo played fa'irly—and ia tho matter of these reflections upon Ministerial inlegrity, the principle of fair play is lacking. We believe that Mr Massey nnd those who follow his exam-

ple, ure committing a fault in political as well as a blunder in party ladies. umui J..