Untitled

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15607, 3 June 1916, Page 8

If the little knot of Rod Feds opposed to the Military Service Bill mean to continue the impudent tactics of obstruction to which they resorted in the House of Representatives last night, we trust that the Government will rely upon the House to support the necessary measures to bring them up with n round turn. Criticism must not he stifled, but there is a vast difference between reasonable criticism and purely facti6us and spiteful obstruction by three or four insignificant members <.f the typo of Mr Webb and his allies. The lied Feds who last night held -j, meeting behind closed doors in this city may approve of the obstructionists, but nobody else will. New Zealand has its modest share 'n the Birthday Honours. To-day it is announced that Brigadier-General Robin has been made a IC.C.M.G., Mr F. W. Lang, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has been Knighted, and Mr Cullen, the retiring Commissioner of Police, has been made a Companion of the Imperial Service Order. Sir Alfred Robin has rendered very useful service to the military system of New Zealand, and his new honour is a fitting recognition of his work during this war. Mr bang's Knighthood will be welcomed by his fellow-members, not, less because of Sir Frederick's pleasant personality throughout his long Parliamentary career—he is one of the veterans of the House, having entered Parliament in 1803—than because his Knighthood is a renewed recognition of the dignity of the Speaker's position. Commissioner Cullen. in his long service in the Police Department, has been

a model of integrity and efficiency, and we arc particularly glad that good work in the office he is soon to relinquish is recognised as -worthy of special reward.

"We are sorry to note that our morning contemporary is beginning again to misrepresent our statements pretty frequently. Yesterday, it 6aid that we made the "wild and mischievous statement ' that ''the well-to-do classes seem to hare responded best of all to the call for scrvico." Its readers are intended to understand that we made that statement and went out of the way to do so. That, of course, is seriously untrue. In commenting on what seemed to us an unintentionally unjust implication by Mr lt>itt that the shikrers are chiefly amongst the rich, we said that there arc shirkers in ail classes. Our own opinion was clearly stated thus: "We do not know in what class or section of the community, measured by income, the proportion of shirkers is the highest." We then referred t 0 a letter which Mr Charles Lewis wrote in reply to persistent imputations against the weil-t-o----do class, and said that "Mr Lewis proved, as far as figures could prove anything on the poiut, that the well-to-do classes seem to have responded best of all to the call for service." Ihcre could be no more careful disclaimer than this of responsibility for the statement now actually attributed to us as a dogmatic statement of fact of our own.

— A\ hiie we are on the subject, we may note another very illegitimate mis-statc-r.ient of our plain and often-expressed views on war Taxation. Our contemporary a lew days ago declared that we wish war profits to bo spared. It has several times made that suggestion. Of course, we have declared over and over again, as emphatically as possible, that war profits should be taxed and that they are the fittest of all subjects for taxation. Now, we arc at all times glad to discuss matters in dispute, but discu.s'j.ijn is impossible where a critic directly misrepresents our plainly expiessed views. \\ have been charged u ith many crimes by our contemporaries, but. neter with mi-v-stating their views or garbling their printed words. It is no pleasure to us to make it public that the offence we complain 0 f is being committed, for reasons which concern the usefulness and tho rcputo of the newspaper Press. But our little reminder may lead our contemporary to avoid a practice that ought never to lie necessary, and is not necessary i.*i arguing any reasonable case.

—4— Generally, the host thing to ssv of the trivialities with which some members of tho House waste Parliament's time and the public money is t 0 sny nothing. But tho re is a serious side to the affair brought up by Mr "Wilford yesterday in his capacity' ns "friend of tho votrr,'' namely, the discovery by one of tho Public Service Commissioners of tho evidence showing that a certain public servant was a sort of agent for Tattersall's. Few people will sharo the indignation of Mr Wilford and the "Public Service Journal'' at the "mean-np.-s'' of tho person who "gave away" this reprehensible behaviour on the part of the officer concerned. But the public has a right to notice tho fact itlia+i the Assistant Commissioner has 1-enn warmly condemned by tho "Public Service Journal," which is the voice of the public servants generally. Tho "Journal s" attitude is deplorable. Pretending to fool aggrieved that the information on which the Commissioner acted should hav-e been given direct to that official, instead of through the Departmental head, tho "Journal 1 ' solemnly tfeclarcs that tho exposure of what was really improper conduct "must of necessity onoourago in tho weaker of our fellows an undesirable spirit," and is "a direct incontive to tho man of little principle to play the sneak." The frame of mind hero revealed is not one to cause the pub'.ic to think that the managers of tho Civil Servants' Union are very good shepherds for their flock.