THE RIGHT TO CRITICISE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18572, 26 November 1920, Page 4

THE RIGHT TO CRITICISE.

We are afraid our morning contemporary has acquired a habit which is making it rather ridiculous. It has occurred on twenty or thirty occasions lately that tho trend of the public finances, the apportionment of public expenditure, or other phases of Government policy as disclosed from time to time,, have been so indefensible from any logical standpoint that our contemporary has felt constrained to enter a mild protest. Whenever on these occasions it has been betrayed into the expression of sentiments which- were coincidently to ho found in the columns of the “ Lyttelton Times,” the Reform journal, with a consistency and iteration which its readers must be finding monotonous, has endeavoured to repair its reputation for party loyalty by a grave reprobation of the “Lyttelton Times ” for saying,- in other words, those things which the “ Press ” said. The formula has never varied. The publio have been told that while a Reform journal, . divorced from all considerations of party and politics, and inhaling the pure thin air of the peaks of absolute impartiality, may slap Mr ■Massey’s wrist or even kick his shins, the right of criticism must be rigidly denied to the Liberal Press, because from such a source it can only mean a manifestation of “ party spirit,” and can by no possible manner of means bo either in the interest of tho Dominion or of this fair province of Canterbury. Wo hope we shall not be considered illmannered or unduly brutal if we remind our contemporary that the party in power was placed there with its support and against our opposition. If it chooses to forsake its natural function as apologist for the Administration which it has assisted to the Treasury Benches, and which a majority of the electors would prefer to see on the other side of tho House, then it must get .over its surprise and indignation at finding itself in the wrong camp. Tho latest occasion for onr contemporary’s parading of the “ not in the public interest ” formula is our innocent reply to an officially-inspired announcement in a Wellington newspaper that the high percentage of expenditure to revenue (80.26 per cent) for the twentyeight -weeks ending October 16 is due to the increase in railwaymen’s wages ante-dating an increnso in freight charges and passenger fares. We replied that for the last four weeks of which particulars are available, four weeks in which there was no increase in pay, in which traffic was particularly heavy, and in which increased charges were in full operation, tho percentage of expenditure to revenue had actually increased. Our contemporary did not do us the justice to indicate the nature of our contention, possibly because its logjo was too powerful, but it deprecated the statement on tho time-worn ground that comment from us must necessarily be “unreasonable,” “absurd ” and “ against tho national interest.” It also trotted out an old and decrepit bludgeon with which to smito us—the theory that the tilings we say are calculated to annoy Auckland. While the conciliation of Auckland may appear good politics to a party whoso most influential leaders aro denizens of that province we have not noted that deference to Auckland ever got anything for Canterbury, and as we place the interests of Canterbury first, and the interests of the Reform Party nowhere, wn are not likely to be influenced

by allegations of tho need for deference to Auckland or any other province outside Canterbury. If our contemporary finds it impossible to support its own party it must put up with .the circumstances. It certainly cannot expect to have a monopoly of criticism of a Government which provokes nothing else. And if our contemporary is again tempted to use its pet phrase about our comments being against the public interest let it remember that it opposed local loans and supported sponging on tho Mother Country when this journal was attempting single-handed to initiate a moro self-reliant policy; that it sneered at tlio idea of the abolition of the duty on tea, an idea which tho Government promptly appropriated, and that it lias not in twelve years offered any such helpful suggestion to the Administration as ours that the purchase of land for returned soldiers’ settlement should bo financed by the direct issue of Government debentures to the vendors of land. We submit that our criticism is constructive and helpful, and Hint the theory that only the Reformers have a right to criticise the fruits of Reform is simply childish.