HASTY CRITICISM

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 24, 29 January 1923, Page 6

HASTY CRITICISM

The Empire Exhibition Mission which toured New Zealand and the other Dominions, was ■ designed primarily to give publicity to the aims, and scope of the exhibition. This work certainly occupied its members closely during their brief stay'in New Zealand, and the Mis- j sion had neither the time nor the opportunity for a. thorough study of Dominion conditions. It must come, then, as a surprise to many people that the Mission has furnished a report which, judged from the extracts to which Sir James Allen ob-1 jects, is decidedly critical in tone. "The report," states. Sir James, "not only exceeds its scope, but casts grave and unwarranted reflections on the resources of New Zealand." Under these circumstances, Sir James Allen would ha-ve been neglecting his duty nad he failed >o take the first opportunity of controverting statements calculated to be so damagingto th© Dominion's reputation. His action is fully justified by the announcement in to-' day's cable messages that, as the result" of the intervention of the Duke of Devonshire, the report is being rewritten and parts' are being deleted. The Duke, it is added, disclaimed responsibility for some statements .which are regarded as irrelevant and wanting in accuracy. Major Belcher, in replying to Sir James Allen, claimed that the general trend of the report was to emphasise the and wealth of undeveloped resources ; and that, moreover, the report was a private document. Whatever may have been the intention, extracts from the report have been published, and possibly the published portions are those most critical. But whether the report was for private information or for public dissemination the Mission should have.taken all pains to ensure its accuracy. New Zealand does not object to criticism, and New Zealandevs-are commonly the severest critics ■ of their own country; but the criticism should be enlightening, well-inform-ed, and relevant. If Sir James Allen.'s references to the report fairly indicate its tone, the criticism ther? recorded does not fulfil thes^ requirements. Indeed it seems luainl ly to be marked by those qualities ,

to be expected in a report prepared in haste. That it should have been as hastily published is mast unfortunate. It is an advertisement on similar lines to the exhibition catering quarrel, and more likely^.to subdue than to quicken interest in the great effort to promote the econo-' mic unity of the Empire. The Duke of Devonshire has stepped in, as he did formerly, to put the matter right, but if there are many more mistakes macle, even the tact and good judgment of the Duke may be tried too severely.