Greymouth Evening Star. SATURDAY, MARCH 10th., 1928. MORE REFLECTIONS.

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 March 1928, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. SATURDAY, MARCH 10th., 1928. MORE REFLECTIONS.

T HE association of the Jubilee Committee, and the “Argus” was apparently so close, that the defence we made of ourselves against the Mayor’s criticism of our attitude during the celebrations, has been construed by the “Argus” as an attack on itself. As usual with our contemporary, its methods of debate are unscrupulous, insinuation being used with typical cunning. When the Jubilee balance sheet is published; and the details are given of the expenditure, it may be easy to realise why the “Argus” proclaims itself as the- good friend of the Jubilee committee, and why 'gratitude, alone, should be sufficient cause for it to vearn to be its defender.

The “Argus” makes merry because the Greymoutli Harbour Board was approached in the ordinary way of business as to whether it desired to advertise in the “Star” Supplement. Knowing the excellent value it would get for the money, the Board readily consented, as did the other concerns approached. We do not suppose the public are interested in such matters, but we make this explanation in case any is considered necessary. If the Harbour Board had not taken space in the supplement, there were plenty of other advertisers anxious to do so. Incidentally, we would emphasise that the fact the Harbour Board placed a small order with us, does not make us the Board’s devoted servant and defender, as the “Argus” is to the Jubilee Committee. We are quite candid in our opinions about the policy of the Board (for instance, see an article published in to-day’s issue). The “Argus” has hitherto failed to comment about the shortcomings of its client, the Jubilee Committee, although town and country are full of disappointed parents, children and -Jubilee visitors. This strange silence may be merely a coincidence.

With customary effrontery, the “Argus” twits us about not attending functions to which we were uninvited. We leave that sort of doubtful behaviour to others with lower standards. Referring to our non-attendance (solely because of lack of invitation) to the dinner at the Old People’s Home, the “Argus” states: “It must have

done so because no motor ear was sent for its reporter. Our own reporter had to find his way thither, and managed to do so without either a special embossed invitation or a special conveyance.” That forcing itself where it had not been asked i»s doubtful cause for pride. Usually, our contemporary “finds it way,” so far as local news is concerned, by waiting for the “Star” Io appear, and then its “special conveyance” is scissors and paste. As for the “help”

given to functions such as “Shopping Week” and “Brighter Greymouth,” our contemporary boosted these mainly because of the extra advertising revenue it obtained by its “special numbers.” We declined to be a party to such tactics, but nevertheless, gave valuable help without first insisting on (to use the elegant English of our contemporary) “having the milk in the cocoanut.”

However, few will be misled by the “red-herring” laid on the Jubilee track by the “Argus” today. We. may be as bad as it proclaims, but that has little to do with the question at issue, which is, that in some important matters, the Jubilee Committee’s organisation failed badly, and that it is a duty of the Press to ventilate public opinion on this subject. It is agreed that good work was done by some public-spirited citizens, and these deserve the warmest thanks. The next duty of the Jubilee Committee is to publish soon full details of the revenue and expenditure, so that the public can see for themselves how their money and the contributions of local bodies etc., were expended, and who got the chief financial benefits from the Jubilee functions.