THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1898. MR ISITT AND THE PREMIER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3260, 22 March 1898, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1898. MR ISITT AND THE PREMIER.

The Rov. Frank W. Isitt in his address in tho Volunteer Hull, Temnka, last Thursday evening, said that as lie went up and down the colony, from one mid to the other, he found that everyone had the same thing to say about the Premier. No one would believe a word he said. Ho practically repeated MrT. E. Taylor’s assertion that “ Mr Seddou is the biggest liar in New Zealand.” Coming from a rov. gentleman who lias so recently been proved guilty of having uttered many falsehoods, this is good. Ho has not only boon proved guilty of having uttered falsehoods in this country,but was shown to have made false statements concerning men of position and standing in a neighboring colony during a short visit ho made to it. But tho fact that ho has been found out does not seem to have disconcerted or abashed Mr Isitt in the slightest degree. He goes about still calling people liars as gaily as over, and there are people who believe him. Now, can this do good to tho temperance cans* ( Cau it be possible that in order to promote temperance it is necessary to brand the Premier us a liar ( Surely not j

surely those who hare the cause of temperance at heart canuot believe that this sort of thing is calculated to assist them. And if they do unt think so, why do they cheer and applaud Mr Isitt ? We can understand why they applaud every effort to promote temperance. The work is a good and holy one, which is deserving of countenance and support from every one, and it ought to prosper without resorting to such atrocious methods as are adopted by Mr Isitt. Mr Seddon has many friends in New Zealand, and there is not one of them who will not resent the coarse, brutal manner in which he is referred to night after night on every temperance platform in the colony. The result is that Mr Isitt, by his brutal attacks on the Premier, is alienating sympathy from the cause of temperance, and doing it more harm than good. But what evidence has Mr Isitt adduced to support his contention that Mr Seddon is a liar I JNot a scintilla of of evidence, but his own unsupported statement that people have told him so. People told Mr Isitt that a certain Inspector of Police in New South Wales was a drunkard, but a most exhaustive inquiry proved how false the statement was. Is it not possible that what Mr Isitt has heard regarding the Premier is equally false ? lu Parliament last session a prohibitionist made a similar accusation against Mr Seddon, but several members stood up and said they had never known the Premier to have been guilty of falsehood or even prevarication. One of these was Mr Robert Thompson, member for Marsden, who is anything but a friend of the Premier, and who is sometimes classed as belonging to the “ Left Wing.” Here we have the testimony of men who have for many years been associated with Mr Seddon in Parliament, and surely their testimony is worth something. But what can Mr Seddon do to contradict such statements? Absolutely nothing. If a specific charge of having tcld a lie wore made against him he could meet it, but no such charge has ever yet been made. Mr Isitt' always takes good care that he makes no specific charges. One of his friends has done so, and catno off’ second best. Mr A. 0. Begg, a Dunedin prohibitionist, in the recent Dunedin by-election, said that Mr Seddon had succeeded in getting the Robert Campbell Company to dismiss him from his position as the manager of the company in New Zealand. Mr Begg made a great deal of capital out of this during the election ; but what must have beeu his feelings wheu the other day the Robert Campbell Company wrote to Mr Seddou statiug that it was absolutely false. There was a direct charge, and it was proved false, and if Mr Isitt made direct charges like this against Mr Seddon they could be proved false also. But Mr isitt and his friends do not make direct charges. They have grown wiser. They have made a few direct charges in their day, and they have had to pay damages for libel. They know that to make direct charges is dangerous, and consequently they do not go beyond generalities. No one can meet such accusations. For instance, they say Mr Seddon is a liar, and who can contradict them ? But let them say Mr Seddon told a lie on such a subject, and thou they can bo mot. Then it cau be proved that either ho did or did not tell a lie, but so long as only generalities are indulged in it is impossible to contradict them. No specific charge of tintruthfulness has ever beeu made against Mr Seddon, and consequently none has been proved. Wo have only the words of Mr Isitt and Mr T. E. Taylor for it, and until they are supported by some tittle of evidence it would bo fair to give Mr Seddou the benefit of the doubt. That is British fair-play, aud this the British public will give Mr Seddou despite all that his tradneers can say. Let them go on flinging their filth about like Dean Swift’s Yahoos, the great majority of the people will not believe them. They have a following who would believe the moon is made of green cheese if they said so ; the sphere of their influence will still bo restricted to that section of the community. The cause of temperance is not prospering, aud it cannot prosper so long as its leaders continue the policy of abusing the Premier, for Mr Seddon has friends, and they cannot but feel disgusted aud anuoyed at the unfair aud underhand way in which the temperance party are endeavoring to undermine his influence.