The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JULY 11, 1914. RECKLESS CHARGES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8782, 11 July 1914, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JULY 11, 1914. RECKLESS CHARGES

One© more it is our painful duty to notice reckless charges from the ' ‘Ticform 5 > side of the House. Yesterday it was ono of the rank and file of the party. To-day it is tho Prime Minister himself. In the former’s case them is nothing to add, because the performance being new wo must wait a reasonable time for tho hon. member .to do tho right tiling. In the Prime Minster’s case there is no such need. The performance is so old that one can say that its antiquity is its strongest condemnation. There has been plenty of time to do the right thing and the right thing has not been done. It is the old Mokau case which was revived the other day by Mr Campbell, M.P., at a meeting at Havelock, likely to be ever memorable to that hon. gentleman; and again in tho debate on the Address by Mr Smith, M.P. for Waitaki in tho House of Representatives on Thursday evening. This last revival has- brought up Mr Whyte in defence of all interests and persons attached. All the facta of the case mattonal touts political side are stated in another column in an interview accorded. by that gentleman to our representative. It will be easily within the recollection of tho public that what is known as tho Mokau transaction was extensively used during the election campaign of 19H by tho then leader of the Opposition. Mr Massey, to be brief, denounced tho transaction in tho severest terms, as contrary to public policy, and against tho law. He laid special stress on tho fact that the dealing with the Mokau property had been made possible by the issue of an Order-in-Council, and in connection with this Order-in-Council, he said that Air McNab, an ex-Minister, was chairman of the company which secured the order during tho acting-Premiership of Sir James Carroll, He practically charged Mr Mcffab with having used his influence with his old colleagues of the Ward Government to issue tho Order, to advance Iris own personal interest as a shareholder and chairman of tho company interested in tho dealing. Mr Massey added that he thanked God he did not know as much as Sir J. Carroll about native lands. It was this lino of denunciation persisted in through the election that greatly prejudiced Mr McNab"a chance of ©lection for the Palmerston district, as it was intended to do, if it did not lose him tho election altogether. This in itself constituted a special electioneering campaign within the general election campaign. That was the beginning of the “Reform’’ treatment of the Mokau transaction, denouncing its legality and tho good faith of those engaged. The end so far, as reflected in the speeches of the members above named, is maintenance of the charge of disloyalty and bad faith, and a declaration that the terms on which the Order-in-Council was granted are being evaded,. Now, as to the beginning. There is a statement in Mr Whyte’s interview w-hich arrests the attention with irresistible force. It is that after AXr Massey had made his first attack on the legality of the transaction and the good faith of the parties interested, he received in writing a statement' from

one of the directors of the company, who is a director still, that his statement about Mr McNab had no foundation whatever m fact, and warning him to be careful in any future statements he might make on the subject. Wo understand, further, that most of those members of Mr Massey’s party who are now in his Cabinet earnestly dissuaded him from proceeding further on that line. At anyrate, Mr Massey had the written testimony of an honourable man so placed as to know the facts accurately that Mr McNab was not chairman before the order was issued. In the taoe of that testimony he repeated his statement about -Mr McNab, and kept on repeating it regardless, until ho had fatally injured Mr McNab’s chance at the election. He kept at it in Parliament, until ho got what ho professed to want, namely, Inquiry by committee. The Native Affairs Committee inquired, and the joint Mokau Committee of both Houses inquired. The first took Mr McNab’s evidence, and •Mr Massey, who cross-examined him, failed to shake his denial of any connection with the Order-in-Oouncil. The second did not touch the question of Mr lieNah’s position at ah, and Mr Massey made no attempt to touch that question, though the committee could have given him every facility for substantiating bis statements. Having failed to substantiate before two committees, and having still the testimony of the director with him, did he withdraw ? It was his plain duty to do so. He had made a statement winch was proved to him to he wrong. Ho had repeated it to the injury of a political opponent, ho had declared he would substantiate it, and he had failed to do so -with two opportunities specially afforded. And still he rcmained silent. Is that honourable Y Is it just? It is neither, to allow a statement disproved and unsubstantiated to remain to the personal discredit of the person affected. Hut it is the action in this Mokau case of the leader of tlie r oteform'’ party. It is the action by which ho succeeded in influencing one election at any rate.

But that is not the end. In later days there is the statement of Mr Campbell following exactly the statement made by his chief two years before, and persisted with in the face of external disproof and internal want of evidence. Dir Campbell, when'. challenged,- did what his chief did not. ho withdrew. But wo are entitled to ask if his chief was behind him. Also when the member for Waitaki made those statements on Thursday night, we are entitled to ask the same question. Mr Massey ought to have followed the example of his colleague, Mr Fraser, who would not be silent when things were said he could not approve of to the discredit of honest men. And Mr Massey know that tho statements of the member for Waitaki were wrong. It is impossible to believe that the Minister for Bands did not know that the Mokau lands were being settled rapidly under the terms of the Native Land Act, more favourable to close settlement than those of the Land Act. It is impossible to believe that in his position he could be ignorant .of the fact that the Mokau key had unlocked a vast territory to settlement. It is impossible to imagine that Mr Massey could regard his “gang of speculators” as ho had called the Mokau Company as big land monopolists now holding tight when he knew they had to distribute in small areas within three years. Yet he let his'supporter’s wild statements pass uncontradicted. Mr Massey, who stands convicted of injuring an opponent by making statements which ho had every reason to know to bo wrong, allows bis followers to keep up the same, and to add reckless assertions which he ought to know to be absolutely false. It is his duty as a man of honour to offer withdrawal and apologise to Mr MoNab, and to restrain his followers from re-, peating statements of his own which are proved to be unfounded, as well as from flying in the face of facts for tho benefit of his party. If he will persist in seeking political advantage by such methods, and if he will refuse reparation where it is justly due, the constituencies of New Zealand will know what to say to him at tho proper time. ’