The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JANUARY 7,1888. PRESS LIES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1683, 7 January 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JANUARY 7,1888. PRESS LIES.

We bad hopes that as soon as the elections were over—especially as they turned in favor of the Conservative party —Conservative newspapers would cease to lie. But the old song says that “ dogs delight to bark and bite, for ’tis their nature to,” and probably it is on the same. principle that Conservative newspapers delight to tell lies just because it is their nature—or, more strictly speaking, their business—to. • They know that the truth is not favorable to the interests they watch oyer, and consequently they find it necessary to give exaggerated views of many things. Probably we ought not to quarrel with them for it; if they only follow their natural instincts it is scarcely reasonable to find fault with them. If they have been born to He, then, of course, they are only fulfilling the end of their being, and anything which does that occupies a very strongly logical position. But, if their mission is to lie, fortunately people are not bound to believe all they say. We yet have the right to doubt, and even to dispute what they say, though it is not often we think it worth while to exercise it. Such misrepresentations as _ are frequently made by the Christchurch Press—certainly the most shameless

of them all—may be fairly taken notice of. A week or so ago Sir Eobert Stout spoke a few words at a public banquet at Dunedin. He declined, he said, to discuss politics, but might say ho disagreed with the reduction made in the Ministerial salaries and in the honorarium of members, and also in the reduction made in the number of members; but he did not blame members of Purliameht for it. The people elected them pledged to these reductions, and members could do nothing else. One would think that there was. nothing very wrong in this, but the Christchurch Press saw in it a subject for a leading article, and it was into this article it dovetailed the lie to which we refer. It said these reductions became necessary on account of the extravagance of Sir Eobert btout’s Government. Now, this is a good, solid, substantial lio— one so audaciously bold as to command attention at once. The inference to be drawn from it, of course, is that all previous Governments were economical, and' that extravagance was unknown - until _ Sir. Eobert Stout came into power. Now, first of ’all, Who raised the Governor’s salary ? Was it not Major Atkinson ? Who increased the number of members ? Was it not Major Atkinson? Who fixed the honorarium at £2lO per ' session ? • Was it not Major Atkinson ? Did not Sir Eobert Stout reduce it to half for i second sesiHonin the same year ? Then, Who filled the offices of Civil servants with their friends ? Was it not the Atkinson party ? Did nut Sir Eobert ’Stout abolish patronage and pensions l m the Civil Service, and render entrance ibto it obtainable by competitive examination? Sir Robert Stout hardly made an appointment, tq the Civil Service while in power. If we mistake not,, he, dismissed many servants. • Sir Eobert Stout at- the worst only allowed those Who had been appointed to the Civil Service'to remain in the service.

..Now seeing that it was the Atkinson party who raised the Governor's salary; who increased the number of members; who fixed their honorarium at £210; and who made all the appointments in the Civil Service, is it not a most disgracefully impudent thing to throw all the blame on the Stout-Yogel Government? If the salaries are too high, and if. civil servants are too numerous, it was Major Atkinson who fixed these salaries and made these appointments, and Sir Robert Stout is only guilty of having alio wed the arrangements his predecessor had made to exist, yet the Press does nat blush to blame Sir Robert Stout for all. Sir Robert Stout had Liberal views on the laud question, and it is on that account that lies must be told to discredit him before his fellow colonists.

THE LAND QUE3TIO ?. The Otago Daily Times doubts very much whether Ministers will be able •to carry out half the retrenchment which they anticipated, but there ia one subject on which it congratulates them—and that is their land policy. It lauds Mr Richardson up to the sky, and insinuates that possibly other Australian colonies will copy the Land Act which he has passed. This is another little bit of exaggeration which is calculated to interfere with the action of the respiratory organs. By reading the Times one would come to the conclusion that the new Land Act contains something new and original, and that Mr Richardson had “ struck oil ” in law-making, but reference to the Act itself disabuses the mind at once of this idea. One finds nothing in it except the old policy of facilitating “ land-sharking ” in a worse form than it ever existed before. It is merely a policy instituted to raise the wind. Owing to the late Government preferring to reserve the land for bond fide settlement than to dispose of it at any price the land fund got into debt, and this is an effort to replenish it. The land is to be sold m allotments of 640 acres of first-class land and 2000 acres of second-class land, at from 5b to 20a per acre. After all we have spent on railways, roads, and public works, the land is to be sold now as cheaply as it was 20 years ago, and the facilities for speculation are greater- The result of this will be that speculators will buy up the land now, and that in a few years Government will be glad to buy it from them at three times .the price now - fixed. Thus it. is that the present Government are playing into the hands of the speculators. There is certainly nothing new in Mr Richqrdson’s Land Act. It is acobbled-up job, and its evil effects will be yet felt, .