THE "DEAD MAN" CONTROVERSY.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13904, 1 December 1910, Page 8

THE "DEAD MAN" CONTROVERSY.

NEWSPAPER COMMENT. (BFECIAL TO "THE PREBB.". WELLINGTON, November 30. The action of the Prime Minister in dragging in the name of the late Mr Seddon, in connection with the Hine charges' was replied to in the early hours of this morning by Mr .Massey and Mr James Allen. The "Dominion" also deals with the matter in reference to the fact that the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, in the Upper House enquiry, dragged in Mr Seddon's name wherever possible. The "Dominion" proceeds: —'-'We do not think anyone but the most ignorant could be 'deceived by such tactics, and no one but the most callous could approve them. The writer, 'Civis, whose excellent weekly causerie m the 'Otago Daily Times,' needs no praise from us, in "discussing the matter in a recent issue, quotes the newspaper report of the Prime Minister's recent attack on 'the men who are making this cowardly attack on a dead man, and proceeds to make these observations. 'The whole amusing tantrum proceeds on tho assumption that Mr Seddon, being dead, is not only himself beyond the touch of criticism, but confers the same immunity on his whole administration, including Sir Joseph Ward who was a member of it, which is clearly ridiculous. A public man in all his public actions is the property of the public, living or dead. lhe curious thing is that nobody m the Committee was imputing, or wanting to impute, anything discreditable to Mr Seddon—at least, so I make out, hence the hollowness of the phrase, "attacking a dead man." It is sentimental claptrap, and' it doesn't ring true.' " "Of course it docs not ring true, continues the "Dominion." "lhe Prime Minister is not so greatly concerned about Air Seddon as about Mr Seddon's first lieutenant. Irft us quote a very good statement of the correct nrineioles that should govern the actions of deceased politicians. The statement we refer to is as follows, and was made, as the language shows, by a member of Parliament. Although not very gracefully expressed the sentiments aro sound, and make a crushing rebuke to the Prime Minister's constant endeavours to represent as odious and contemptible anything that he distorts into 'an attack upon a dead man.' Here it is:—What kind of recorded history should we havo about our Kings and Queens, many of whom are respected, if we wero to have nothing about their bad deeds Avritten after they were dead and buried? What is there in all this talk about raking up the ashes pf the dead ? Take any history, and you will find that in all ages there have been men who have committed many dark deeds that were only discovered after the men themselves were dead and. buried. Has every allusion to them been suppressed, and those referring to them twitted with 'rakinrr up the ashes of the dead?' No, these deeds have formed the subjects of many interesting books and remarkable records afterwards. I have as much respect for ,tho dead as any man, but I object to 'false issues being placed before us on imoropor grounds o! supposed sentiment, which almost continuous lines of history .give many instances to the contrary." Then the article proceeds: — We should, add, perhaps, a word as to the author of these sentiments. His name is Sir Joseph Ward. The extract quoted above is from a speech which he delivered in the House of Representatives on July 17th, 1896. It then suited his' political purpose to hold the dead open to attack; to-day it suits him to "take the exactly opposite view, and ho thinks the country is so easily fooled." The "Post," referring to Sir Joseph Ward's speech last night, says "Sir Joseph luridly overdid the 'dead man' plea, and courted the epithet of 'humbug,' which Mr Allen subsequently applied. It' was mere assumption on Sir Joseph's part to accuse the Opposition of an effort to hold up a dead man to ignominy. These melodramatic 'dead j man' iterations and reiterations, given 'in a loud voice to tl>e 'accompaniment of thumps on the desk, were a serious blunder "in tactics. This elementary mistake roused and fired tho Opposition, and all prospect of a sane debate vanished."