"STOLEN."

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 115, 18 May 1933, Page 9

"STOLEN."

LETTER TO PREMIER. PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPER. N.S.W. ELECTION METHODS. (Prom Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, May 12. One of tlie most unpleasant and at the same time one of the most sensational incidents of the referendum campaign has arisen out of an article which appeared in the Sydney "Truth" last Sunday. On political topics "Truth" has consistently supported the Stevens plan and the "yes" vote ever since the referendum became a matter of public controversy. But in this last article "Truth" adopted in its discussion of the question the highly picturesque methods that it generally reserves for its descriptions of races and boxing matches, and it poured its copious store of scurrilous vituperation upon the Langites.

Superlative Invective. Possibly the opponents of the Reform | Bill did not mincl being described as "the leather-lunged imitators of the lamentable Lenin"; but when they were denounced as "the political lice tha£ thrive so lustily in the locks of flecent Labour," it was only totbe expected that they would retaliate in some more or less appropriate fashon. Accordingly the "Labour Daily" responded with not immaterial indignation, in a denunciation of the manners and morals of. "Truth," which lost little by comparison with the offensive passages that I have quoted. "Born in the gutter you have not yet reached the kerbstone," is a sentence from its apostrophe of its enemy. It denounces Sydney "Truth" as "standing for the weekly portrayal of all that

is verminous, moronic and degenerate in the social life of the community," and in conclusion it leaves the verdict on "Truth's" outrageous utterance to "the sense of descency of the Labour Movement and the people of New Soutli Wales whose threepences allow you to exploit crime and prostitution for dividends." "On Behalf of the Party." No doubt many people will feel that the "Labour Daily" retort was fully justified by the provocation. But unfortunately the Langite organ, in its desire to "get one on to" its opponents, went a step further than this. It published a facsimile of a letter addressed by the managing director of "Truth" to Mr. Stevens, thanking the Premier for a note in which he had expressed his appreciation of " 'Truth's' efforts" on behalf of the party. The principal object of the "Labour Daily" was to associate "Truth" with the Nationalist organisation and thus to discredit the Stevens Government and its supporters in the public mind. But the letter that it had photographed had been stolen and Mr. Stevens was thus provided with another weapon against Mr. Lang, which he used in most effective fashion. It is true that during this fight the Langites have displayed rather more than their usual disregard for the truth. One week Mr. Lang informed the world that he had positive evidence of the intention of the Government to sell the tramway service for less than half of its value. After the Premier had described this as a deliberate falsehood, Mr. Lang returned to the charge with a prediction that if the referendum is successful the Stevens Government will make a further cut in social services land education expenditure to the extent of £7,000,000. Mr. Stevens at once declared that this was only another canard invented by Mr. Lang to capture votes, and possibly some of the electors may be inclined to think that after all, 111 a political contest, people cannot afford to be very fastidious about the missiles they employ. But this last incident is of quite a different character. "Stolen Goods." This is what Mr. Stevens lias to say about the matter: "In Monday's issue of the State Labour newspaper appears a photograph of a letter written by the managing director of a Sydney newspaper as a personal letter to myself as

Premier. That letter was received by me. It was placed with my private files at the Premier's office. That letter has since been stolen. That stolen document was taken to the Labour newspaper. Mr. Lang is a director of that newspaper. It owes him £135,000. That newspaper must know that this document is a stolen document. It knows that whoever gave them that document to publish gave them stolen goods. It was a personal letter of good will to m:', and is being used for the purpose of injuring the paper concerned." Mr. Stevens goes on to condemn such "criminality," but this, he reminds the electors, is not by any means an isolated instance of deliberate dishonesty connected with the Langite party and its methods. Last week the "Labour Daily" obligingly provided another illustration of Langite ethics and political morality. Here, again, Mr. Stevens may speak for himself: "Only a few days ago this same newspaper published what purported to be thy copy of a memo, allegedly signed by myself and circulated to the Cabinet, which, so tha Langist propaganda sheet declared, was directed to make further economies. The memo, in question was never seen by me as Premier. It was never authorised by me. It was not even discussed. When I was asked by telephone if it were to be submitted I replied in the negative without even seeing tl:« document." How is the publication of this document to be explained? "It transpires," says the Premier, "that -V) of these unauthorised memos, were roneoed. When the file was examined subsequently to its reproduction in the Langite paper, one copy was missing. It had obviously been stolen." Mr. Lang's Record. But this sort of thing, Mr. Stevens goes on to say, is quite consistent with Lang's past record, and among other matters of the same character ho reminds the electors of the theft of his own private papers twelve months ago. "Last year, on the floor of the Hou-e, Mr. Lang quoted from my private cash books, which I then stated in Parliament had been stolen from my desk 111 the Opposition room." It has certain v not improved the chances of tiio J™ party to have these scandals a few days b e fo r e tl e P^or a] i fc / , ~s ks 2Z & c r,*4S the welfare of the workcjs. -