NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1030, 20 January 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

$ ' The assumption by General Godny of the post of Ims apparently mikeudeoutheratate of ine£dcießcy>iii 'the Defence Department. Yesterday \ve printed, on authority that soeiiiod good to us, tho news that Cabinet had authorised a payment of £100 to Captain It.' J. S. Seddon in connection . with correspondence work involved by the ' appointments • under the cow ■'■ defence scheme. The information as to the payment -was not given out officially. It would . never have been given out, it would nover have reached the public at any time (since it would have slipped unseen past the last possible scrutiny of all as merely part of the heap that Parliament would have authorised as "extra clerical expenses"), had our paragraph not appeared. We now learn .that the payment was, indeed, authorised by Cabinet; but the payment, according to our evening contemporary, is a bonus to Captain Seddon himself. Confirmation ofthis fact has been denied us, but we may- take it as correct, and we may take as correct also the further statement that the payment was made on the recommendation of the Commandant. Tho public will be utterly unable to understand on - what sound principle this altogether extraordinary bonus should have been authorised by Cabinet. Equally strange will be accounted the Commandant's recommendation of it. Is New Zealand, at the beginning of its awakening to. the fact that the national defence administration is a matter of life and death to its' people, to understand that the bad old principles are still in force 1

■ A remembered feature of the elections in Britain in January of last year was'the humourless blasphemy l of many Radical writers and speakers. It was doubtless'their memory .of the widespread disgust they then aroused that, kept the offenders, generally within bounds during the elections of last month. The spirit that said in January that "a vote for tho Peers is a vote against Christ" had to find some outlet, however. It appeared- in a doggerel song called the "Men of England Election March," which was widely printed, and which, according to a noto by its author in.the Manchester. Guardian, was "sung with great success in many constituencies." This is the sort of thing it is: Shalt six hundred work our ruin, Accidents of birth or brewing? No! Arise! Be up! Be doing! Men! The vote is ours! No doubt this seemed splendid stuff to tho Radicals, but it would require an almost incredible a.mount of excitement to .enable any elector to sing quite seriously: Tyrant House. That ever bleeds us! You shan't tax the corn that feeds us! .' One of us is ho who leads us! ' Asquith, God, and Eight! Wo confess-' that we are hopelessly puzzled as to which of the three is classed as "one of us." Leaving that as a problem beyond our skill, we arc forced to admire the order in .-which l tho three are placed. Comment is hardly needed, but it is thoroughly characteristic of Radicalism that tho order of precedence should bo, "Asquith, God, 'and Right." The only thing wc can trust ourselves to say of this appalling battle-cry is that "Right" is naturally the thing of which tho Radical thinks last. We have to-day to place on record another fine example of tho recklessness and insincerity of tho press supporters of the Government. Commenting upon the Prime Minister's speech at St. Kilda, the Dunedin Star refers to the unfriendly critics of tho Government's financial methods as people who "would risk the good name of the Dominion for the sake of discrediting the Liberal Government"; but nothing need be said of such stupid rubbish, excepting that its only positive, result will be to set people thinking of the willingness of't-he Ministerialist press to approve any injury to the good hamo and happiness of the Dominion rather than 'express an .honest opinion of the Government'.s mismanagement of our affairs. Tlie Star goes on to quote the Prime Minister's statement that "the fact" was that "nearly every financial journal of consequence in England had referred to it as a satisfactory transaction." Its article concludes: "Sir Joseph Ward's protest will not put a stop to the evil, unpatriotic practices of the country's domestic foes, but them is consolation in the reflection that tho truth is appreciated by the vast majority of the people." "The truth" happens to bo the exact opposite of. what tho Prime Minister alleges. He was careful not to give tho name of even one financial critic of consequence that had ' referred to the loan as a satisfactory transaction. _ We, on our part, quoted every opinion wc met with, and with one exception, the Standard of Empire, they all agreed that the issue was a failure. They included tho Times; the Financial Times, the Financial Review of Reviews, tho Morning I'osl, the Westminster Gazette, the Manchester Guardian, and the Daily i\ r ews. Sir Joseph Ward must have been aware of this. Now, the Star either knew tho facts, or it did not know them. In the latter case, its criticisms are foolish, and utterly useless excepting for their revelation

of the rule that governs the Ministerial press in its writings. But if the Star knew the facts when it was making.its extraordinary comments, its offence is far worse. In either case, it has placccl itself in a very wrctchecl position. What the public has to realise from this case —and the public certainly is realising it more and more clearly—is that the average Ministerialist newspaper, when defending the Government's financial administration, simply shuts its eyes to facts and sa;>anything that comes into its head.