SIR JOSEPH WARD AND "THE PRESS."

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16699, 6 December 1919, Page 9

SIR JOSEPH WARD AND "THE PRESS."

SOME VIOLENT LANGUAGE. A violent attack upon "The Press" was mnde by Sir Joseph "Ward at the commencement of his meeting at Loeston Inst night. Sir Joseph opened by saying that he wished to speak of n deliberate lie that had appoared in the columns of the Ohristchurch "Press." He would like to ask tho directors of "The Press" if they paid a man to tell a deliberate lie for tho purpose of influencing an election. He invited the person to whom he had referred to come out into the open and take action against him foi tho statement he had made and was going to make. Sinco Parliament had risen, he had addressed 33 meetings— tho present was his thirty-third—and never once bad he taken an improper advantage of, or said anything against nu opponent. In making liis statement, ho wished to make it clear that ho was speaking without any heat, without any excitement, without any anger. He «as doing ft deliberately. Sir Joseph then crtioted tho following passage from "The Press": —"The support of the Reds in Parliament has been pledged to tho Liberal Leader; the arrangement between tho Ilcds and the Liberals, although denied, is a fact, and is doubted by none but very 6tmn!e people. It is the duty of all good citizens to make impossible the grasping of power by a combination between the Liberal Party and the Reds, and they can do this only in ono way: <by voting directly against tho Wavdist candidates. Only thus will they effectively range themselves against the of disorder of which we had a manifestation last night." Such a statoment, Sir Joseph continned, was a deliberate lie. in the Ilouso of Representatives ho had made it clear that ne would not take office if ho hod to depend on the surconrt of tho extremists in Parliament. He had said so in public, and in tiio presence of the extremists he referred to. Ho had said ii) public that he was against direct action and force. Ho was tho only leader who had put up an opponent .igarnst Mr Holland and Mr Frascr, and nn Independent candidate wns standing r.gainst Mr Semple. The Labour extremists m Parliament, when they opposed public men, rhieflv directed themselves against him. Be had put up Liberal candidates against them, and in one place ho had refused to put up two men, becanscj he had done so the split would probably have let the extremist in. That man. the editor of "The Press,' 1 winch professed to bo a decent journal, must know the position. He (Sir Joseph) would say that the directors who professed to own an organ that was a gnide to the public were responsible for tne deliberate lie that was meant to mislead. He himself was the last man who would take exception to criticism. but when one found such a deliberate attempt to mislead, one must nfc least call attention to the need for the fair treatment of public men, no •"utter how much one might be against them. v In another part of the same issue of the paper, Sir Joseph continued, there was a paragraph that recommended a course for Reformers to t?ke. and deliberately misrepresented him himself. Sir Joseph then read the following passive :—"The Hon. G. W. Russell ■ has stated that he will vote against Mr Mnssey on a no-confidence motion. This moans that he will Join with Labour to nut Sir Joseph Ward in charrw of the Government. Once on the Treasury benches, Sir Joseph Ward ni"v be trusted to manoeuvre the position so as to retain his hold. A vote for Mr Russell in Avon, is therefore a vote to eject Mr Mnssey from office. Under the circumstances. Reform voters in the constituencv ecnro> lie expected to support Mr Russell.—6" A voice: That is an advertisement _ Sir Joseph: No, it is not an advertisement. It's a local in the paper. It is not hn advertisement as far as I am aware. A similar deliberate attempt against him had been made before. Sir Joseph -or.tinred. ;vr! be hnd taken no exceptionto it, but he did not feel disposed to lie quiet under such an nntrno imputation. He had never once discussed the political situation with either Mr Hollnnd or Mr Frascr. and thero was no agreement of any sort between them. That was the absolute truth, and he was prepared to offer a public challenge to the editor of "The Press" and the directors. » He would j>ut down €500, io be given to any charities that any indeperdent persons* might select, if they would do the same and come into the open and make a chargc against him. or disprove that what be had said concerning his associations with the T.nbour extremists. Sir Joseph added that it had been insinuated that he had had something to do with what hart happened in Christchurch the previous night. As a matter of fact, until Mr Massey's secretary had told him in Oamaru on tho same day, he did not know that Sir Massev was to speak in Christchurch that night. Personally he was "-trnnglv opposed to any interference with free speech, whether tho spearor was n. Hafnrmnv b TJKo-al, BJX CXtTCOk

; ist, a moderate Labour xnnn, or an\thing else. All had a right to a fnir hearing, and it was detrimental to the • country generally to irterfere with ' that riirht. If one didn't like n (speaker's politics one could vote for I the other side. J [With regard to the paragraph which , Sir Joseph Ward told his audicncc was not an advertisement, it is hardly necessary to say that it was an advertisement. Os oar readers know, and , was sufficiently clear to anyore who : reads newspapers. We are not respojiI sible for the opinions expressed in it ior in any other political advertisement.]