THE BOYCOTT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1295, 25 November 1911, Page 5

THE BOYCOTT.

AN UNFORTUNATE DEFENDER. '. * HOW THE PEOPLE'S MONEY IS HANDLED. The present Government's boycott of Tue Dominion has been the subject of sonic plain speaking in the Woitland elcctiou; contest. Tho "West Coast Times" printed tho following editorial article last Tuesday:— We presume Air. Seddon knew what ho was talking übout when he replied to a question put to him by ono of tho miners ut Waiuta on Friday evening. Being a party man, he would perhaps know' the real" reason for certain actions oil the part of the Government; reasons which, for policy sake, have not been u»ude public. The tact that such a questiou was put in the big mining centre illustrated pretty clearly tho fact that'tho wholo ot the electors of New Zealand are taking a very' intelligent interest in the political affairs of tho Dominion. The question and answer,were-: The miner: What is your opinion in.'reference to tho distribution of Government advertising? Mr. Seddou: I voted against The Dominion getting Government advertisements because it is run by tho Opposition to decry the Government, and tho shareholders aro wealthy

. landowners. Tho Government was incensed against The Dominion, rim V it is by wealthy freeholders. Why should that paper bo supported by being paid for advertisements by the Government which they arc always condemning? It gets tho treatment it deserves, and it goes too far. Mr. boddon went on to say that in othor parts of the country the distribution .of advertisements was equal, instancing' tho two papers in Hokitika. I .In Kumara a small daily newspaper . IS, very much against me," said Mr. Sdddou, "it is anti-Scddon, but it gets its sh.-.ro of the Government advertising,, and why should I object to it Retting those advertisements?" Mr. eeddou ftlso mentioned that in his opinion the object of The Dominion .was -to get the Opposition into power .and maiutaiu tho freehold We'faid at the outset that we presume 1 ; SL ' (1 T d . ou k,,ow what he was talking about If he did, then he laid an irS able cWe ot Tammany against tho present, Administration. He accused them of discriminating between papers of different political colour-of subsidising the favourable.-, press-ami his Chief will not relish having the. whole position given away by we inexperienced member for this district. It wins to us that before the party in power turns its nolitical tyros out upon »T , s |°, n "y seas , of politics, that they should be properly equipped and thoroughly primed. If Mr. Seddon's explanation ot the Government's action in boycotting J. he Doiii.Mox is the true one—and he declared it to be so-the younx member may nave expressed the feelings of the Government. Ho is. ■ however, lamontbly astray m his tacts. First and most important of all, we would like to disillusion the ■member upon the point when h<? contended that the money spent in advertising belongs to the Government. Such crass ignorance is inexcusable in any candidate lor political favours. The "money handled by Hie Government belongs to the people, and tho nurse-string holders aro supposed to spend the people's money whore'the best , value is obtainable, notwithstanding Mr. Seddon's opinion. We need not here elaborate upon the vnluo of The Dominion- as an advertising medium— it is road throughout the. whole of New Zealand. Why even in this corner of the political vineyard, considerable support is. given to the bisr Wellington daily. According to Mr. Seildon, because it decries the Government in power for the time being, it must bo penalised by those who handle the people's money, and most important nf" all the people aro debarred the privilege of getting excellent value for tho money spent. If this is not bare-faced Tammany wo 'should like to . know what it is. Tho only-way for .Tub Dominion- In fit itself for Government supnort- is -for ""the. editorial 'columns to ti) the present 'Government—this is tho ;: only logical''-conclusion uo.?sible from. Mr. Seddon's statement: The MiSirijr is. feared by those in and Mr.'Seddcvi had ■innocently -voiced -the opinion, held by a bro proportion , ' of those: vlio take the trouble to"think. The other display of ignorance on the part of Mr. foddnn was contained in' the fentehee "that in other parts of the country tho distribution is equal." This is not so.'.. By tho Government publications Mr. Seddon could have made himeelf acquainted with particulars had he taken the trouble. Let Mr. Scddon toll us how much money "The New Zealand Dairyman," "Tho Rangitikei Advocate," and . the Dannevirke "Evening News" go'c: in Government advertising compared with their contemporaries which support the present Administration? Thero is only one. other point which we wish to refer to in this connection. Replying to a question as to whether or not he held any shares" in mining interests in Westlaiid, Mr. Seddon replied: "I do not hold in any interests i'-i milling. I was offered shares in tho Ross Flat, but I did not think it right and proper to approach the Government for assistance in a scheme in which I was interested." Very good so far. Now if that is really ono of Mr. St-ddon's political precepts wo would like to know why Mr. Seddon continues to support the Government's whole-heart-ed support (in tho way of generous advertising) of the "New Zealand Times" in. which tho fiwldon family is so much interested? It may be pertinent to ask Mr. Seddon to publish a list of the wealthy men behind the "New Zealand Times' vhieh is always preaching Liberalism, and not prnlp übout opposing justice being done by Tiik Dominion because it is run by wealthy men, and its editorial opinion is opposed to the Government. Let Mr. Scddoii tell the eloctors of Wcstlitiid how bix are Sir John Findlay's interests a;id how many Cabinet Ministers have shares in the paper? .Also the number of wealthy citizens und business men whose names occupy a place on tho share list of the Wellington Ministerial organ and who draw dividends from a paper that always supports tho Liberal parly.