Satan Reproving Sin

NZ Truth, Issue 854, 1 April 1922, Page 1

Satan Reproving Sin

T,he Wellington .South Progressive b^jsooclatlbn Is composed of, ft body of [active citizens residing m tlie southern of the city, (Who have' taken it [upon themselves to look after the Inrterests 'of the city generally, but: more [especially that .part of it with which [they are closely associated. These [gentlemen being dissatisfied with the hiiy administration m several important matters decided by resolution to iput certain pei*tineht questions to the rxnayor. Th©r -resolution was -worded as ' r , Will he state .-whether the Morton Dam is now m a satisfactory state, l and whether it is a fact that up--wards of £10,000 value of labor ana cement has been placed m the dam since it was taken over by the council from the contractors? Whether the failure of Morton's dam has required the carrying out of the Orongorongo scheme at an earlier date than -was estimated some years* ago? The resolution was published m. the Press and has caused much perturbation among the city council officers. The mature of the questions is strongly ,ob- j fiected;to, and the sharp criticism 'and [sweeping statements generally made concerning civic administration ' matters have caused the mayor to 'rise m fiis -wrath and utter denials, threats of fire happenings and other things. Mr. ilayor Wright is reported assaying: Persons who make serious allegations .do not seem to realise that their statements are sometimes defamatory and, consequently, action.able. , f l Veil, Mayor Wright is the right man h. the right plafce this time, for, if any me ought to know w£at this iparticular lass of individual does "not seem to ealise," it is Mr. Mayor Wright; that ft, if the Mayor- Wright and R. A. ■Vright, M.P., are one and the' same Berson. Mr. Wright, M.P., from his |^at m the House, 1 made certain "seriKis allegations" against a hig^h GovBrnment official. The Mayor^ may hot fcave known that they were . defamaB>ry. He certainly did know that they Krere not actionable m his' case, as he lettered them m a privileged' place; Had' Rr. Wright not been a member of ParHkment, or had he made the statement Htside the House that he made m the Kouse regarding Mr. Verschaff elt, m Burying out the Government retrenchBent scheme, getting rid only of PrbHstant employees of the Government, Ehile Catholic civil servants of less and experience wore being reHined m the service, 'the statement, 1 to Ke Mr. Wright's awn words, 'Hvould Wk/e been actionable.^ That Is why it us pause to hear the same genRman, as Mayor of Wellington, m reHying to certain pertinent (praps imqueries? put by the WellingHn South Progressive League; senten-' Kmsly and petulantly remark: |v m cases where serious reflections made upon 1 public officers, the B only defence is to prove the alleare correct. In future it be as well if this were borne |Vln mind. An erroneous impression V geema to exist n some quarters that Ban officer employed by a public body ■ can be criticised regardless of the ■facts. . . Hoes not that sound uncommonly like Hi tan reproving sin? We know that ■r. Wright subsequently "ate his m the House, but such advice the above, though > much needed, -with a bad grace from one who yesterday was himself .under the impression! „. .that an HEjcer employed by a public body can X criciolsed regardless of the facts." Wknt sed< '■ ,