PRESS ANONYMITY

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 120, 17 November 1937, Page 12

PRESS ANONYMITY

(Tb the Editor.)

Sir, —Your correspondent, Mr. E. E. Canham, who endeavours to justify the proposed action of the Government to nullify the privilege of anonymity-re-

lating to political articles and letters in the Press, is, thanks to the "Evening Post," quite a well-known figure in the Labour movement. During the past twenty-five years' his name has been- made familiar to your readers by his contributions to your columns, generally of a hostile nature to the socalled vested interests, amongst which

'The Post" is no doubt included. Had

the Press been what Mr. Canham would like us now to believe it is, neither his contribution'nor his name would ever have appeared before the public gaze, so that whatever satisfac-

tion he may derive from the publicity accorded him by the Press, it is incumbent upon him to remember its source. On the other hand, however, had he shown the modesty which actuates most correspondents, and written over a nom-de-plume it is a moot point to say whether his present defence of the Government's action might not have carried more weight than it does. Anonymity hath its victories no less renowned, than straight-out revelation. It appears from your correspondent's letter that he is familiar with the fact that the Labour Party is not altogether a happy family. To quote his own words, "Truly, we of the Labour movement have, and doubtless will continue to have, our share of disappointed aspirants.for office: and history (fairly recent at that) teems with instances of renegades who sold and hated the movement they had formerly claimed

had their undivided allegiance." In the face of this statement Mr. Canham naively inquires on what authority I stated that "The Post's" editorial would be "especially welcomed by the rank and file of the Labour movement itself." He supplies the answer to ,his own auestion with crushing emphasis, and gives food for further reflection.

In .this connection it seems that trouble looms ahead for the Government. History of the sort related above no doubt will repeat itself, unless the Fascist method foreshadowed is ruthlessly applied. When it is remembered that at least five of the present members of the Cabinet were at one time active members of an industrial movement which scoffed at political action; one was so undemocratic as to assert that the "mere counting of heads" was a senseless way of arriving at decisions to settle industrial disputes, this country is in real danger of having a Fascist dictatorship imposed uponit. Mussolini and Hitler were Socialists at the beginning of their public careers. This in itself should be a warning to genuine Labour supporters in New Zealand to kcap a close watch on their leaders. The number of Orders in Council which have been made during the two y«ars the Government has been in office proves conclusively that the democratic system is truly in the melting-pot.

In conclusion may I just remark un that paragraph in Mr. Canham's letter where he states: "The Labour Government has done all that is humanly possible in the time at its disposal, and in the teeth,of continuous and determined opposition from the representatives of vested interests, etc." Has the Government's failure to carry out its promise that there would not be a man unemployed six months after it took office been due to the opposition of vested interests? In spite of the fact that Mr. Canham assumes with child-like simplicity that the rank and file of the party may criticise their leaders at "party branch meetings, meetings of the L.R.C , and the annual conference." he seems to havo forgotten that the I deputy-Leader of the Government told the last annual conference of the party that the Government was in no way bound to act on its decisions. The ortstanding part remains that the Government does not fear the criticism of the Press. It knows whence this criticism comes. But from its own ranks it wants to know the particular individuals whose "honest criticism" may be a source of embarrassment to it. and this is not surprising in view of the

fact that even your correspondent affirms that there are potential "renegades" and "rats" who may be uncovered by the proposed and welcome legislation.—l am, etc.,

OBSERVANT.

(To the EGTTor.}

Sir, —Our Labour Government, its back to the wall, stands at bay before no less doughty an adversary than the anonymous newspaper correspondent At any moment "Pro Bono Publico," "Pro Patria," or another may deal the Government its death blow, but if it must go down it will not go down without a fight. In this time of national emergency and danger the rights of the individual must give place to the necessities of the State. The Government's strength in numbers, its free use of the radio in broadcasting debates, civic receptions, and news from the Prime Minister's Department, and the opening of the first State house may all be in vain unless the anonymous correspondent is crushed. This correspondence must be prohibited. Let the Government act with secrecy, speed, and firmness—with secrecy by not disclosing until the Bill is presented to the House the terms of the proposals to sweep away this right which has existed almost since newspapers have been newspapers—with speed by according the measure -urgency even at the risk of delaying other measures which implement election promises— with firmness by applying the closure even though the Opposition are few in number. Thus alone may the Government be saved in this time of dire peril, and as we have the story of how Horatius held the bridge, so may some gifted poet of the future tell how Mr. Savage saved the Labour Government of New Zealand.—l am, etc., TORY.