The Hastings Standard Published Daily. SATURDAY, AUGUST 15, 1896. THE PRESS ASSOCIATION MONOPOLY.

Hastings Standard, Issue 95, 15 August 1896, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 15, 1896. THE PRESS ASSOCIATION MONOPOLY.

For tl e cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance. For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The House of Representatives was engaged during the greater part of last evening's sittings with discussing a motion by the Hon J. M'Kenzie, " That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the present arrangement under which cable news is supplied to newspapers, the charge made as entrance fee to the Press Association, and other matters relating thereto, with power to call for persons and papers." The motion of the Minister of Lands did not meet the views of Sir Robert Stout, who acted the part of special pleader for one of the biggest monopolies in the colony, and who objected to interfering with the rights of any private company. The Premier, who apparently knew inore about the subject than the previous speaker, instanced the enormous charge demanded as entrance fee for the Hastings Standard, and thought they had arrived at such a stage that they should inquire whether the Press Association was being carried on in the manner intended by Parliament. Mr Hogg said the Association was a dangerous monopoly, and was antagonistic to the liberties of the Press. After discussion an amendment moved by Mr W. W. Collins was carried, to the effect that the scope of the Committee's investigations should be confined to the working of the Electric Lines Act so far as it referred to copyright telegrams. The amendment practically does away with the enquiry into the case of the Standard, but we hope that when the facts become ; known the question will receive the j consideration it is entitled to.

According to our Wellington correspondent Captain Russell will, on his return home this evening, make enquiries with regard to a remark made by a " Ministerial supporter " that the Association had accepted £3OO from the proprietors of the Hastings paper, who had been unable to get either telegrams from the Association or a refund of the deposit. We are in a position to prove this and a great deal more. We will tell him that Mr E. W. Knowles, the Chairman of the Association, when refusing to accept our endorsed bill for £2O0 —a bill which the Union Bank, at Hastings, was willing to discount if necessary—in addition to our £BOO cash deposit, remarked : " I will not accept that bill; I must have a written guarantee from the manager of a bank doing business in Wellington that it is correct; atul Khat I knot* of hank managers yw are

not likely to yet that." We will be furt"her able to prove that the said Mr Knowles was evidently determined to prevent our publication on the day arranged and that he said : Why are you so anxious to start on the 27th April. I think the Ist May ought to be soon enough for ypu." We will tell the member for Hawke's Bay that Mr Knowles placed every obstacle in his power in our way, and when our representative protested against his ungentlemarily and unfair conduct he was ordered out of the office. We will also let him know that when the refusal to accept our bill put us to no end of trouble and expense, wc demanded the return of our £BOO cash deposit, and that although the Association refused to send their wires they also refused to make a refund, claiming that it was a deposit on a contract entered into. For nearly four months they have held that amount, and although we have tried to come to terms we have been unable to do so. We have not before paraded this statement of facts to our readers, as we had hopes that the directors would see the rank injustice done to the Standard and at least treat our application for a reduction in a fair manner, taking into consideration the enormous injustice we have labored under through the action of the Chairman of Directors, Mr E. W. Knowles, proprietor of a paper hitherto circulating in this district. The boasted fair-play of the Press has in this instance been flouted, and we leave our readers to judge whether an attempt has not been made to prevent a newspaper from being published in Hastings-