THE “POST” ON FAIR PLAY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8654, 12 February 1914, Page 4

THE “POST” ON FAIR PLAY

The independent evening journal, in its desire to protect the Tory leader from anything appearing in its imagination to be of the nature of criticism, accuses us of hysteria, ignoble tactics, and a lack of British fair play. This generous treatment arises from our article on Lord Eanfurly’s address to some rebellious subjects at Dungannon, in which the Prime Minister of New Zealand is clearly alleged to be “on the side of Ulster” in the intended revolt against law and order. It is alleged by the independent evening journal that we were “in a frenzy to leap at Mr Massey.” No evidence is produced to support this absurd allegation, because there is none in existence. We did not “leap at Mr Massey.” We criticised Lord, Ranfurly’s speech as being unfortunate. The “Post” admits that on first sight the cabled account of his lordship’s utterance might cause the “average reader” to have “a feeling of amazement,” and then goes on to try to explain the whole trouble away by putting the responsibility on to the reporter and the cable dispatcher. But our contemporary does not put the position clearly, a circumstance which, from its anxiety about British fair play, ■ we must of course attribute to inadvertence. It is alleged that we founded our article on these cabled words: —“The Premier of New' Zealand, who belonged to Londonderry, was most anxious about the situation in Ulster.” Nothing could very well be more inaccurate and misleading than this presentation of the case by the “Post.” If anybody will take the trouble to look again at our article, it will he plainly seen that our objection was to the coupling of our Premier with rebellion. Here are the words w© quoted from the cable message, from which the independent evening journal has omitted the consequential part:—“The Premier of New Zealand, who belonged to Londonderry, was most anxious about the situation in Ulster, akd, with the exception of Quebec, the majority of Canadians wer© ox the side of Ulstee.” That is to say, ; that the Premier of New Zealand joined with the hulk of the Canadian people in backing a rebellious minority to resist a constitutional reform to the extent of civil war. We say again that it was a most unfortunate speech, and that Mr Massey ought not by silence to give, or appear to give, consent to its only possible inference. And we should advise the “Post” to quote correctly before again accusing _ others of lacking a sens© of British fair play.