The Star. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1868.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 171, 28 November 1868, Page 2

The Star. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1868.

v The Hon. Mr John Hall, who, it is as well to remember, is still PostmasterGeneral, has been getting into trouble with tbe Press. There is nothing very new, or very wonderful in this, as those who know Mr Hall and have watched his public career will admit. Besides, Mr Hall has shown himself, in other matters, a very apt pupil of Mr Stafford, and it would be strange indeed if he had not imbibed that gentleman's notorious hatred of a free and unfettered Press. Although, in the general charge of exaggeration and incorrectness launched by Mr Hall at the whole Press of the South, we also are included, we prefer to treat this matter mainly as it affects the public interests and the political character of a Colonial Minister. It will be necessary, before proceeding further, to give a little explanation. Our readers are aware that ever since the war in the North Island began, we have endeavoured — not without success, we hope — to lay before them, day by day, as full an account of the various events as can well be furnished by means of the telegraph. We have also, as the periodical receipt of Northern newspapers enabled us, presented all the details which we possibly could, or rather, all that we had reason to believe were reliable. We are not claiming any credit for this, apart from the recognition of the fact that we have done our utmost to inform the public faithfully to the best of our ability on a subject which they all feel a deep interest in. But we wish it to be understood that we have exercised all that care which it was our duty to exercise in furnishing the public with intelligence from the North Island. On Tuesday night, in his place in the Provincial Council, after he had been specially appealed to regarding the state of affairs in the North Island, Mr Hall was reported by the Lyttelton Times to have said: " He was quite wil- " to inform the hon. member for Eaia- " poi that he was quite right in saying " that the accounts received from the " North, and published in the news- " papers, were very much exaggerated " and incorrect. The hon. member " had referred at an earlier stage of " the proceedings to his (Mr Hall's) " presenc© in the Council. Now, he " wished to assure the hon. member, " that if his presence in Wellington " was necessary, he would be there." Now, any person reading the above would at once say — Here is Mr Hall, who is a member of the Government, and therefore in a position to speak, telling us that the accounts published in the papers here about the North Island are exaggerated and incorrect. What a shame it is that these newspapers should be so cruelly careless ! That, we say, is the effect which Mr Hall's words were calculated to produce — a general condemnation of all that the' Press had published about the war in fhe North. No one would for a moment suppose that Mr Hall was speaking without the very best grounds, or that he intended to produce an impression of security contrary to the actual facts of

the case. Such conduct would be too monstrous. Accordingly, the poor newspapers would bo rated and abused. We have quoted the Lyttelton Times report of what Mr Hall said, and we will now quote the Press report of the same speech. Here it is : — " The hon. " member was, however, right in sup- " posing that the published accounts " were very much exaggerated, as the " newspaper accounts of Native affairs " had been during the last three or " four months." If our readers will take the trouble to compare the two reports they will see that they agree exactly in tlie main fact, and they will also notice that the Press report makes Mr Hall utter even a more emphatic and particular charge against the newspapers. Did the reporters of the two papers agree beforehand to say substantially the same thing, or did they agree afterwards to do so, or did one reporter do the work of the two papers ? We think we may dismiss these questions by saying that such could not have been the case. Here, then, is fact the first — two newspapers agree in saying that Mr Hall made a certain assertion, one paper being more decided than the other. We come now to Mr Hall's subsequent conduct in the matter. On Wednesday, after he could have read the report in the Lyttelton Times; but before the Press report had appeared, Mr Hall wrote a letter to the latter paper, which was published in its Thursday's issue. Mr Hall said : — " The report of " what I said last night in the Provin- " cial Council on the above subject is " imperfectly reported in the Lyttelton " Times. I said that my own informa- " tion led me to hope that the accounts " which appeared in the newspapers " were exaggerated. In this hope it I " now appears I was fully justified." Strange to say this denial by Mr Hall appears almost side by side with the report which we have quoted from the Press — a report agreeing most decidedly w ith the one Mr Hall is condemning. Did ifc occur to him that this was rather unfortunate when he received his copy of Thursday's Press ? The Lyttelton Times of yesterday, as might have been expected, took up the subject with some warmth, and produced an array of evidence to prove that Mr Hall did say what he was reported to have said. Among other items, the Times published the following letter from the reporter who had taken down and reported Mr Hall's speech : Sir,— l was aware of the importance of anything that Mr Hall might say with regard to the state of Native affairs in the North Island, and I took special pains to take down his speech word for word as he spoke it. Mr Hull used no such words as " my own information led me to hope." The following are Mr Hall's words :— " Mr Hall — I am sure the Council will see that I don't attend here as PostmasterGeneral. Still, I am quite willing to say that I believe the hon. member is quite right in saying that the accounts are very much exaggerated— that the information in the newspapers, obtained from the North Island, has been very incorrect. The hon. member refers to the matter of my being here. Now, I wish to assure the hon. member that if my presence was necessary in Wellington 1 would be there. I sent in my resignation some time ago, and I now only hold office until my successor is appointed." Your obedient servant, James Grey, Reporter. It is hardly necessary to say that this is a direct and circumstantial denial of the truth of Mr Hall's letter to the Press, which we quoted above, as direct and as emphatic as anything could well be. The next act of the drama was played out in the Provincial Council yesterday morning. Mr Hall rose, before any business was proceeded with, and spoke, referring to the Lyttelton Times and, we presume, the reporter's letter : Mr Hall said that before the business was proceeded with, he wished to call the attention of the House to a question of privilege. Some remarks he had made in reply to the hon. member for Kaiapoi were imperfectly reported in the Lyttelton Times, and he wrote to the Press stating that such was the case. In the former newspaper of that morning it was asserted that the original report was correct. He did not think it necessary to enter into a controversy with the newspapers on the subject, but merely rose in his place to repeat the words he said he used he certainly did use ; thero was not the least doubt about it ; he was quite certain he did use them. He repeated tbis, as it was but right he should do so in his place in the Council, with tbe view of setting the mind of the Council right on the subject. : That is, to : say, Mr Hall declares that he spoke certain words which the

reporter, taking "special pains" to report him "word for word as he spoke," declares he did not speak. And there the matter rests — Mr Hall's declaration against the testimony of two reporters. "What are the public to believe ? This is not a mere quarrel about the correctness of a report ; it is something far above that. The public have a right to demand from Mr Hall the fullest possibleexplanation,andbarejustice to the whole of the Southern Press demands that he should either sustain his charge against it, or make an ample apology. His own character, as a public man, as a member of the Government, is involved, and the people must be told who hds been misleading them, for it is clear that some one is very seriously to blame. We have been at some pains over the subject, because it appears to us a great deal more serious than the public may at first sight be inclined to admit. We are satisfied that we have not published exaggerated or incorrect news, and we do not care to rest uuder Mr Hall's imputation of having done so. It seems to us that the case stands thus : Mr Hall denies having spoken certain words ; two reporters say that he did use certain words, and several members of the Provincial Council, who heard him speak, have given an assurance that the report to which Mr Hall took exception was a correct report. As collateral evidence, bearing very strongly on the case, we have the fact that Mr Hall is strongly addicted to quibbling, or trying to " wriggle " out of a difficulty, and that he is only now doing what the Government have been doing all along — denying to the last moment the gravity of the crisis in Native affairs. A very entertaining and very instructive essay might be written on "Mr Hall's Quibbles." There is plenty of material for it, and we may some day find it necessary to present our readers with the work, carefully collected from the public records, and compared with contemporary opinion. Mr Hall, in his letter to the Press, part of which we quoted above, tries to make out that the papers were incorrect in reporting that Titokowaru had crossed the "Wanganui river into the Bangitikei district, and he also tries to insinuate again that because this particular bit of news was apparently incorrect, therefore all the Native news I for a period of three months had been exaggerated and incorrect. In fact, he actually repeats, under another form, a charge against the newspapers at the very moment he is denying that he had made it ! This is either the essence of ingenuity or the very height of audacity. But Mr Hall does not know, any more than the newspapers he is trying to condemn, where litohowaru is. He can't say whether Titokowaru has crossed into Rangitiliei or not 3 all he can say is, that the alleged crossing is not confirmed. Did any newspaper in Christchurch assert for a fact that Titokowaru had crossed the Wanganui river ? Assuredly not, and therefore Mr Hall's information was superfluous as well as vague. But he still says " the accounts " from the North have been exaggerated. What accounts? Was there no massacre at Poverty Bay ? Have Colonels M'Donnell and Whitmore not been repeatedly defeated ? Is the Waikato not in a state of excitement. Perhaps Mr Hall will tell us why, if the news from the North has been exaggerated and incorrect, there should be all this hot haste of rushing over i the colony and away to Australia for i volunteers, why a premium has been \ placed on Titokowaru's head, aud why ; rewards are offered for Maoris cap- ! tured by the forces. If the news has 1 been exaggerated and incorrect, why, ' in the name of all that is sensible, and ] right, and just, is the Government t spending the people's money as if the i Treasury were inexhaustible ? Let '■ Mr Hall come forwarJ and justify his ! position, or let him be for ever silent. ,