The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1925. ONLY £875 ; IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN £l000

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12251, 24 September 1925, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1925. ONLY £875 ; IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN £looo

In another column appears a letter from Mr J. A. Lee, M.P. It refers to an editorial m the '‘Times” entitled ‘‘Spoils to the Victors. The “victors” were the New South Wales Labour Government; the “spoils” were an increase of £5 a week in salary and other things. Obviously angry, Mr Lee declares that the allegation is “too stupidly malicious for anything.” “With the possible exception of the ‘Times,’ ” he adds, ‘‘everybody in New Zealand knows that all parties in the New South Wales Parliament joined in the movement for the increases. ...” Our correspondent’s first shattering point is that because the increases will be received by every member of the Assembly, the “spoils-to-the-victors” argument is demolished. That sort of logic ' speaks for itself: it is more worthy of the playground than of a legislator who takes himself seriously. Of course, the Parliamentary Labour Caucus in New South Wales was thinking of the other fellows when it decided on a rise in salary of £275 per annum. It is a pretty thought which vastly appeals to uS. Our charges, according to Mr Lee, have their origin in hopeless ignorance or studied malice. Our' critic is terribly positive about the matter, and uncompromising into the bargain. But we. are not dismayed. Here is a pregnant fact which we offer the omniscient and indignant Mr Lee for his soul’s content:

When the predecessors pf the Lang Government entered into office they voluntarily reduced members’ salaries from £875 to £6OO. They (the Nationalists) were no sooner become the Opposition than the Labour Administration helped itself to the extra £2/5 a year. It is credibly reported in a Sydney daily of recent date that the £B/5 represents a compromise between the old figure and the jfiooo which a section of the Labour Party was advocating. That little item of news may assist Mr Lee to maintain a non-partisan interest in the subject under discussion. So much, then, for the “everybody knows” theory. , Curiously enough, our correspondent omits to comment on the treatment meted out to Sir Arthur Cocks, the State Agent-General in London, and several other high officials, who are, presumably, not of the right political colour. Possibly the omission was just an oversight on Mr Lee’s part; or perhaps he thought it too characteristic of the party to call for mention. Mr Lee animadverts on the methods “usually employed by the conductors of the ‘Times’ in their embittered attacks on the Labour movement.” To begin with, we never assail the movement. It is the leaders of the movement who come under, the lash: the men who so plausibly promise the worker a slice of the moon, and will as plausibly find an excuse for not delivering the goods if and when they are put to the test. As for our method of attack, we invariably adopt one, and one only: good, straight hard-hitting, and plenty of it. We have no patience with a rabid sectionalism (of which Mr Lee is a promoter) which, for its own selfish ends, turns its back on the national wellbeing.