A CRANKY CRITIC.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 April 1917, Page 7

A CRANKY CRITIC.

To the Editor.

Sir, —The ancient Grecian who said 'Man, know thyself," evidently understood the chief defect of the genus huTian. Not so your correspondent Mr. J. 3. Taylor, who evidently without wishing to acquire the power to see himself as jthers see him has dared by virtue of the foolhardiness gleaned from his habitual state of self-righteous self-glorifica-tion to criticise Mr. Joe B. Simpson, one :f the most fearless and able newspaper ;orrespondents in the Dominion. It would be just sis unnecessary, as difficult, to fitly eulogise the long-sustained, not to say noble, efforts practiced by Mr. Simpson in the people's interest; and it must be regarded as exceedingly regrettable that this dauntless pioneer of progressive reforms should be answered in the public press with illogical invective, and the frothy frivolity indulged in by such mental dyspeptics a« Mr. J. 0.

Taylor. I do not contend that Mr. Simpson as "guide, philosopher, and friend" to the. general public, should be regarded as impervious to the criticism of honorable searchers after the truth, but when we find the rules of honorable debate, as applied to national problems of grave and paramount importance to millions unborn, violated by a tissue of stodgy wit, plus magnified trivialities woven around the sacred name of Joseph, we feel that, we are called upon to make, a. stand for the right in, "the last ditch'' of chivalric journalism. As Mr. J. 0. Taylor makes no serious attempt to controvert Mr. Simpson's view of the land problem. It is to be hoped that the lafter, fortified by his position in public esteem, will refrain from indulgence in the strain of unprofitable personalities, so indiscreetly initiated by Mr. J. 0. Taylor.' Reading Mr. Taylor's ugly, pointless, and unprofitable tirade against Mr. Simpson, 1 was aptly reminded of Mr. Lloyd George's reply to Mr. St. Leo Strachev's criticism of the famous Budget of 1910: "I could only have been so answered by a pompous, pretentious and exceedingly futile person, ignorant of the fundamental buses of the subject."—l am, etc., "JIM THK PENMAN." Durham Road..

THE "UNIQUE" MR HINE. . To the Editor. Sir—What lie said was "probably unique.'' and a Publican thinks so. What the Prime Minister said Monday was, "Only a small minority of farmers bud failed to make returns." What Mr 'Hine said Tuesday was. "A majority had failed to do so." What the 'Premier sai'cl .vas, "Assessments were too sacred a matter for a Royal Commision inquiry." What Mr IT. said was, "They were fit matter to advertise." What ha said about the meeting was assumption, foil, he Wasn't there. What lie sail about farmers being shirkers was insinuation, over which lie'd have to smile out West, or be shot. What I say is, lie can go to Berlin, and the cungenial society of the B.H. aforementioned. What lie will say is, "This is swearing," he shocked. and do accordingly. What I shall do is be up and off as' I'm not in his parish And what I must say is: In my yestcv day's letter read 17s for Smith's rate 'taxation, not ISs. And what I say in Is,—l am, sir, etc., I - 'ROBERT J. BAKEWEXL.