FIGHTING FOR WHAT?

Grey River Argus, 18 February 1944, Page 6

FIGHTING FOR WHAT?

U.S. Senator’s Query WASHINGTON, Feb. 15. Demanding that Congress begiven full information iOf s the e comm b _ i?ca n n tS a Senator h Shipstead, pointed out in the Senate that Australia and New Zealand had concluded a treaty in which, he said, they weie reserving to themselves, an important par? in the disposition of Pacific islands, “apparently including islands not yet recovered from the Japanese.” y He added that it would ao?ear to be proper for the Senate to know .something .about such an agreement as long as the United qtfltes were committed to divesting the Japanese Empire of its conouests during the past half century. Senator Shipstead told the Senate that it should know what American manpower is being sent to fi sht for. He asked: “Is it really for the socialisatioii of much of Europe, or for the creation of some hybrid Australasia-European sovereignty over the entire Western Southern Pacific Oceans.” .

of in the correspondence of his side. Mr O’Leary: You have given us a little of why you ceased to be High Commissioner, and vou have told us of a conversation you had with the Prime Minister in Ottawa, that the trouble between you arose through your dissatisfaction with the appointment of Mr, Nash to Washington, (whereas you expected the job. . Langstone: No. It was the Prime Minister’s action towards myself, not the appointment of Mr Nash. Mr O’Leary' But it was in.connec'.tion with -Mr Nashs’ appointment that, you complained of the Prime Minister’s treatment of you? Langstone: No. I never made that complaint at all. Mr O’Leary: The long and short of if is that you had a violent disagreement with the Prime Minister when he was in Canada? Langstone: No. I told him what 1 thought of his action. Mr O’Leary: And you told him. as you expressed it from the public platform, in language that was not fit for ladies to hear. Langstone: I don’t deny that. Witness said he did not know of frequent references in the Press to his resignation until after his return to New Zealand. Asked if he did not think that, prima facie, what he had said about the Prime Minister in Canada was defamatory of Mr Fraser, witness said that 'it was a recognised thing in Cabinet working that any business affecting a Minister who was abroad was discussed with that Minister, since he was still .a member of the Government. That han not been done in his particular case. If what he had said about “double-crossing” were untrue, it would be libellous; but he maintained that it was true. Witness was cross-examined as to an interview given on his return to New Zealand, and a report of a meeting he addressed at Taumarunui. He said that, by saying that Mr Fraser had “out-Ramsayed Ramsay,” he meant that, in forming a War Cabinet, Mr Fraser had acted contrary to the generally-accepted principles of the Labour Party. By his reference to the language he had used in conversation with Mr Fraser, he meant something that ordinary common working men used in the vernacular to one another. Mr O’Leary: All this was before Malcolm’s campaign started? Langstone: Yes. After further cross-examination, Mr O’Leary said he itook it that the plaintiff was not seeking to make money out of the present action. Langstone replied that damages should be commensurate with the harm that had been done. This ended the case for the plaintiff. Mr O’Leary said that he did not propose to open to the jury, since he had lost his ifight to reply by putting -in letters and documente, but as the plaintiff apparently alleged that the article was not a correct account! of what Malcolm said, he would call the reporter concerned. Leonard J. Cronin, a journalist,, said that he worked for “The Post” on election meetings last year. What he had reported in the present case was a true and accurate report. ’ Cross-examined, Cronin said that, if he had been questioned at the time as to whether the plaintiff had resigned or had been recalled, he would have felt it necessary to look up'the files. He had not considered there was any risk in the paragraph which was selected by him in the ordinary way from the proceedings. £2OO DAMAGES AWARDED WELLINGTON. Feb. 17. In the Langstone-“Post” libel case after a retirement of 50 minutes’, the jury found for the plaintiff, awarding hirn £2OO damages.