Grey River Argus TUESDAY, March 30, 1926. THE “STAR” AND THE WELFARE LEAGUE.

Grey River Argus, 30 March 1926, Page 4

Grey River Argus TUESDAY, March 30, 1926. THE “STAR” AND THE WELFARE LEAGUE.

Masquerading as an editl there ■yesterday appeared in our evening conI triiiparary nearly a coi'imn of propa- ; gaiola, the sGiirse of which any reader i coulij easily have guessed without, tke admission made, in introducino - ii, that it was supplied by the Welfare League. A little while ago we asked v iiy a communist, who replied to a previous editorial criticism of his party, v/as j I<dd it. would be published only if paid j for. The only answer is this typical | piece of Welfare League propoganda, 'which is I'ffercd without any particui lars whatever as to the price paid by the League for so much space in the editorial column. Wc arc therefore as much in tin' dark as ever regarding the methods of our contemporary, which, on its part, claims to know all about our own. If it means that it would not expect us to sell our editorial space to the Welfare League, we bow to its accurate knowledge in that regard, while acknowledging at the same lime that our ignorance of its own scale of rates for editorial space remains as dense as ever it was. The ••Star” professes to think wo should imt follow its example, but should place our columns gratuitously at the disposal of the Welfare Longue for the sort of propaganda that did duty yesterday as its editorial, including a fanztastic talc' about the Soviet- having shot down in Russia a million Mid a half (- people. When our contemporary is prepared to accept such a tale on the authority of the Welfare League, we can only conclude it is very hard up indeed for something to say against, the Communists, and we certainly would ask—in view of the League s. I manifold misrepresentations of the Labour Movement —for its authority, instead irf its ipse dixit. In fact, we cannot deny that every capitalist Government in Europe, to go no further, quite unreliable in its allegations .against the Russian proletarian Government, but the Welfare League is just about the limit in that respect. e would like to know, now, why our contemporary thinks the propaganda it . yesterday published should haxe been given space in this paper. Lt cannot claim a knowledge that we treated the League us the ’‘Star” treated its Communist correspondent by attempting to make publication a matter vf advertising rates. V» c ate sure of our ground in saying this. We have never offered to publish the League s propaganda as advertising matter. , How comes it then that the “Star ’ declares that the League sent us its propaganda? That is what we would like to know, in view of the fact Ihtu it. has manifestly nt its disposal the editorial columns of our contemporary. Would the Communist correspondent have been given space in the same column? It is conceivable, in view Ox tlfo empty nature of our contemporary s previous criticism of Communists, that a budget of Welfare League propaganda would appear in the natuic oi a godsend, and that its natural reflection would be that a gift horse_ is not to I be looked in the mouth. We arc prei pared to accept this as a possible anI swer io our query. As a hint—another i <>f our gifts to the “Star” free, gratis. Land for nothing—we woubl suggest that it get the Welfare Le.ague to vi*rifv its “facts” in regard to the political shooting down of a • -and a half Russi o '»<s by th' x Government. The Welfare League may be able to gull some critics of tne

Communists, but when the public see through the tale they fell, it is a moral certainty th-at iho League will leave' tiie gullible people to hold the baby.