The Dominion. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1908. A NEW DOCTRINE OF LOYALTY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 121, 14 February 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1908. A NEW DOCTRINE OF LOYALTY.

An interesting question is raised by Sir Josepli Ward's indignant attack, in a speech at T6 Aroha, upon' the writers who are " traducing'" the fair fame of the. New Zealand railways in articles published in-America. It is, no doubt, highly probable that there are appearing, in, America some sharp criticisms of .the financial working of the railways, in this country, written with the object of combatting the agitation for the national ownership of the means of internal transport ill the United States. The Premier* however/seems indisposed to believe that the writers are inspired by any other motive than the desire to'commit that offence which he-is so fond of calling '" stabbing in the back." Sir Joseph's mind rims too much lipon stabbings rhis constant suspicion of a lurkitig assassin'is not healthy. .The sentences in his speech to which we would call attention are these: —" The country 'possessed railways which even some of the citizens had; not a'kind word to say about. They spoke ill of them, and decried with absolute disloyalty & system that was being jmproved out of all knowledge from . end to- end of the country. . ;• Writers,' employed sometimes ,by private railway owners,' spread . the idea' through these American '.'journals that. the . railways were inferior and not fit for the work.' This was a libel, ,and was, disloyal." • Unless Sir Joseph Ward regards the whole race of maiikind as being under an obligation of loyalty to the Government ,of .this country—a > hypothesis ; not altogether incredible—his - statement amounts to an accusation against certain New Zealand writers in the pay of the private railway companies of New Zealand. Disloyalty can only be 'committed by those upon whom there is an obligation of loyalty aiid tibedience. The Premier's conception of the duty of a-loyal citizen is worth examination. Are we to conclude that no Nfcw ,Zealander may,: without committing an > act of . disloyalty$ express any views unfavourable to the admin-, istration and policy of the Ward Government ? Does patriotism inean that the truth must riot be told, or opinions freely expressed) if the truth or the .opinions are condemnatory of the Government of the day? The Premier, apparently,: would answer " yes" to both questions, and follow up his decided affirmative with some tragic observations upon "back-stabbing." The point at issue is not loyalty, but truth. A mendacious attack upon the New Zealand railways,, if consciously arid wantonly mendacious, is sufficiently defined when it is • called a lie. Why drag in loyalty to confuse, the issue ? The actual excellence or badness of the Government's railway policy is not in question just how; but it may be urged that there are many thousands of good citizens ill New Zealand, who decline to endorse the Premier's glowing eulogies of the; working of the railwayg, and who are none the less loyal to the country for doing so. This is, of course, not'the first occasion upon which the Premier has stigmatised his critics as traitors, and laid' down.by implication the principle that to attack his administration is to attack the country. It is high time that the Premier realised the exquisite absurdity of identifying his Government with the noble abstraction the worship of which is called patriotism. A modern king may, perhaps, repeat the statement of Louis XIV. without impropriety, but it has been generally agreed that . Prime Ministers, eVen the Prime 'Minister of this very advanced country, may not rank themselves amongst those who are entitled to say " L'etat, e'est moi." No New Zealander who loves his country can be otherwise, than indignant at any damaging misrepresentation of the true condition of things in New Zealand, and if the American articles referred to by the Premier are really mendacious, and therefore capable of an easy refutation, Sir Joseph Ward will not lack support in anything he may do to correct them. But merely to denounce the articles as "disloyal" is .both undiepified and ludicro.ua,.