WHO IS TO BLAME?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1226, 7 September 1911, Page 4

WHO IS TO BLAME?

The explanation afforded by Sir William _Hall-J ones as to the publication in the Westminster Gazette of the remarkable statements concerning the ability of New Zealand to at once absorb about three million immigrants docs not rellect any great credit on the High Commissioner's. officc in London. It seems that the article in- question was forwarded for publication by tho advertising agents employed by the High Commissioner's office, and the excuse offered by that office for the publication is that it was not first submitted to tho High Commissioner for his approval. So that there may be no misunderstanding on this point wo quote Sir William HallJones's cablegram to the Prime Minister in full. It is as follows: "Re 'Westminster Ga?ette,' 22nd July: Had not seen this until receipt your telegram of sth September Statement w.n not made by me. Was extract from •Otago Witness,' 10th lliiy, issued by our advertising agent, who selects paragraphs from Xew Zealand papers for circulation, after first submitting (hem for approval. This was not done in present case.-l tall-Jones." Here it will bo seen the High Commissioner admits the publication of tho articlo by the re.cogniscd advertising agent of the Government, but

■ says licit on lliis occasion this p.'ir- / ticuliu' advertisement was not sub- ! mittL'd for approval. It is a little : curious that six weeks after the m--1 sertion of this remarkable advcrtisc- ; ment the High Commissioner should • know nothing about it until his atI tention is cnllcd to it from Now Zea--1 land. It does not seem to indicate 1 that Sir William Hall-Josks possesses a very alert intelligence department when such an announcc- • ment published in his name in one of 1 the leading daily papers in London ■ can thus'escape .observation. But i that aspect of the position ina.v_ be passed over for the Finding himself unable in facc of the adniirsion by the High Commissioner to question the accuracy of our , statements concerning this extraordinary advertisement of New Zealand, Sin Joseph Waud yesterday, in his customary wild and rcckless fashion made his periodical attack on Tiie Dominion, possibly bv way of casing his feelings. lie had hoped, 110 doubt, to find the paper at fault, but instead found that tho fault rested with the High Commissioners office, which apparently has allowed its advertising agents to get so much out of hand that they venture to publish in the name of the High Commissioner, without consulting him, statements of a moat amazing character which arc repudiated by the Government. What sort of methods have they in the High Commissioner's office when this sort of thing is possible ? How much money has already been wasted 011 this sort of advertising of New Zealand 1 The Phime Minister, instead of being thankful to us for having directed attention to a serious weakness in the administration of the High Commissioner's office, throws his dignity and his sense of justice to tho winds and hurls at us a violent tirade, in the course of which lie misrepresents the position in order to cover hie discomfiture. The circumstanco that the article originally appeared in a Dunedin paper_ has no bearing 011 the question raised by us, although wo may state that we had never seen or heard of it until the Westminster Gazette with it in came to hand this iveek. The facts of importance are that it was republished in a leading London paper as emanating from tho High Commissioner of New Zealand; as stated by 11s; that it was admittedly inserted in that paper by tho advertising agents employod by the High Commissioner to do such work; and presumably the people of New Zealand will ba cxpected to pay for it. The importance of the matter to the public is not so much the cffccfc on British readers of the articlc or advertisement, but • the evidence it affords of the methods of the High Commissioner's office and the intolerance of the Pkime Minister of any criticism directed at his administration, It is Sis J osepii Ward's practice, and it has been adopted by many of his followers, to attempt to attach blame in such eases not to the person whose shortcomings have been exposed, but to tho newspaper or opponent who has done a public service in exposing tho culprit. Tiie Dominion dared to quote and direct public attention this extraordinary statement published in the name of tho High Commissioner, and as the result disclosures arc made exposing a serious slackness in the conduct of the advertising business under tho control of tho High Commissioner's office. And for performing this service the paper is raged at by the Prime Minister of the country in a wild and confused endeavour to divert attention from the real culprit and the real point at issue. It is a great pity that Sir Joseph Ward cannot see that it would be much better for him to frankly admit' in such circumstanccs as have been disclosed that there is something wrong with tho advertising methods of the High Commissioner's office, and that someone should be taken seriously to task over the matter. But he seems to labour under the idea that to admit the accuracy of anything in the way of criticism of the administration of tho Government is to display weakness; and so he is forccd into all sorts of awkward situations fyom which he usually seeks to escape under cover of a wild whirl of words besmirching his critics. No doubt he has found this sort of thing serve him very well in the past, but the wise man does not attempt to "bluff" the public when the cards aro on the table and everyone can see for themselves exactly what the position is.