Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 1887. The Observer's Political Coarseness.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XX, Issue 2084, 24 June 1887, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 1887. The Observer's Political Coarseness.

" As journalists vre do not pretend to be free from error.” These words, as will be perceived, are a quotation. Noting their magnanimity, their almost haughty humility, it might naturally be supposed they comprised the declaration of the Editor of the London Times , or of some other world-famed journalist. Only some great, calm creature whose literary thunder shakes a universe could afford to admit that even he sometimes errs. Nevertheless this lofty admission did not appear in the London Times, but, in a smaller if not more modest sheet—the Wairarapa Observer, uader date June 14, and under heading “ Our Political Course.” The gentlemen responsible for the Observer —to whom we shall hereafter refer as the “ Observers are guilty of error ; they admit it •, they are therefore human. We suspected this, though delicacy might have prevented our mentioning it had not the Observers themselves owned to the fact. This much then is clearly established, viz., the gentlemen under notice are “ not free from error.” But they term themselves “journalists.” We confess we bad not even suspected that, never haying heard the Observers accused of it, and having never discovered any indications of journal - ism in the Observers. However, it is true that we, in common with the rest of the world, have not hitherto concerned ourselves about the Observer . We are not much concerned now, though for a period wo shall depart from our usual position and devote some small attention to its education. Let us now enquire what called forth this admission of error and the article entitled “ Our Political Course,” in which it appeared. During its brief existence the Observer had previously given such support as it had to give to the sitting member for Wairarapa South. For reasons, which hereafter it may be necessary to state, the Observers suddenly deemed it advisable to espouse the candidature of Mr Bunny. Now every person has the undoubted unalienable right to alter ’ his opinions on honest conviction, and when a man does so, temperately stating his reasons for changing, every other honest man applauds his straightforwardness. As regards the Observer's change of front we—though we might, knowing what we do, have felt am used—would have accepted the political pirouette with little remark and as a matter of small moment. Unhappily for themselves these gentlemen are troubled, if not with consciences, yet with enough ability to perceive that their transparent new departure would subject them to the censure and ridicule of those who know them. Moreover, they realised their own innate weakness, and, after the manner of all weak wrong-doers, attempted to conceal their error and feebleness behind the flimsy curtains of abuse, bluster, and pitiful personalities. These things by themselves we should have ignored, but these gentlemen have made utterly untruth ful statements touching ourselves and others, and wo owe it to our readers to pillory such statements, because falsehood—no matter how insignificant or tainted its source —gathers strength if not opposed and dissipated. “ Our Political Course ” contains the recantation and apology of the Observers ; abuse and false statements re* garding ourselves, and similar statements regarding Mr Buchanan. Here are a few specimens of the abuse : “ Our weak-kneed contemporary,” “ Our Jesuitical and ghostly friend,” “ The ghoul-like Editor." Several similar elegancies occur in “ Our Political Course,” which might more appropriately have been styled “ Our Political Coarse ness.” But we do not mean to bandy Billingsgate, freely ad mitting the Observers' superiority in that branch of “journalism,” and therefore mercifully passing by their lame apology for their ludicrou ; change of front—we proceed to discover in what manner we have wounded the Observers' delicate susceptibilities In the first place ihen, our “tone in undecided.” We venture to surmise that before we have done with the Obse 'vers they will withdraw this complaint. Pr weeding, we find we say “ that Mr Bunny is a good n..tn and has been a valuable public servant in the past,” and we “ decline io say that Mr Buchanan is a better.” Do the Observers dcaire us to say Mr Bunny is ml a good man and has not teen a valuable servant in the past f Alas! we have not the facility in word-swallowing possessed by the Observers. But this accusation is only a reiteration under different form of the complaint that our “ tone is not decided enough.” Had we but written about the “Jesuitical and ghostly ” Bunny, or even called Mr Bunny “ ghoul-like" the Observers would have boon content -they would have understood their own vernacular. But because we treat and intend to treat a political opponent with com con courtesy, wo are “not decided 1

enough.” The mistake these good | people make—one common to that class of “ journalists ” —is in confounding their scurrility with sense, and their want of decency with “ decision of tone.” To obviate for the future this confusion of ideas, let us say once for all that we certainly consider Mr Buchanan to be in a political sense, the immeasurable superior of Mr Bunny. We point to their respective political records as demonstrating this assertion, and those (and this does not include the Observers) who knew both gentlemen in Parliament know also that Mr Buchanan is Mr Bunny’s superior in all those qualities which go to make a good representative. But, nevertheless, we do not abuse Mr Bunny; we cheerfully acknowledge his services in the past, while even his most ardent supporters must as freely allow Mr Bunny has been, and is now, most handsomely paid by the country for such services. We prefer Mr Buchanan because he is a younger, more energetic and more practical man than Mr Bunny ; be cause the true and universal interests of this district in which be has a large stake are necessarily identical with his own. We prefer Mr Buchanan because he has ever served the constituency faithfully and well — though not perhaps with that showy " decision of tone ” the Observers love so much. We prefer Mr Buchanan because he is, so to speak, in Parliamentary practice, while Mr Bunny is not. Moreover we emphatically declare that we consider Mr Buchanan did right in bis opposition of the Vogel-Stout so called combination. All these assertions we shall, hereafter, as time and space permit, clearly demonstrate. The Observers opine that “Mr Buchanan has been a failure,” but it is evidently beneath the notice of “journalists who do not pretend to be free from error" to show how be has failed. If to abu°e Mr Buchanan convicts him of failure the Observers have admirably succeeded in so doing, but candid and reasoning men throughout the electorate will demand facts, not bald assertions; they will ask in what manner Mr Buchanan has failed. The assertion that our representative has “ belied ” the Observers’ “ best hopes ” may be very damaging, but hard headed practical men will smile and wonder what those hopes were, and will clearly perceive that the Observers , being a little ashamed of themselves, are naturally a good deal angry. Through the fog of the Observers' scurrility it is consolatory to discover that Mr Buchanan, “As a member of a Road Board or County Council may or may not be all that could be desired." Had Mr Buchanan, in these capacities, not been all that could be desired wo may be sure from the Observers' “ decided tone ” they would have said so and with decision. But these haughty gentlemen spurn such prosaic things as roads, though the making of roads made the Observers, and, as Mr Buchanan has had very much to do with the making of these roads, he has been largely instrumental in making the Observers ; that is, in making their property; he could not make them journalists or decent; heaven alone could do that—and then only by a miracle. But the Observers despise roads. Mr Buchanan has not been showy enough for them. “ Instead of a leader be has been a blind follower." In other words, having been returned as a supporter of Major Atkinson Mr Buchanan has supported that gentle* man. not blindly, but in all those measures which he (Mr Buchanan) deemed beneficial to hia constituents and country. But this is not enough for the Observers, who evidently imagine that their representative should have plucked the Premier from bis bench and seated himself thereon. As Mr Buchanan was too mean spirited to usurp the functions of Premier, the Observers have transferred their allegiance to Mr Bunny. But suppose poor Mr Bunny also fails in becoming a leader, will not that be awkward for Mr Bunny—and for the Observers ? But, enough! We have condescended for the nonce to answer these not very wise gentlemen according to their folly—minus the scurrility. To attempt to meet blatant assertions and bad language with serious arguments would be waste of time and power, and therefore for the present we have finished with the “ journalists ” who “do not pretend to be free from error.” We address ourselves, however, to every thoughtful and conscientious man in the electorate ; we declare that never perhaps in the history of this country were the high character, ability, and energy of her representatives of more vital importance than now, and we appeal to every elector in the coming struggle to use his own calm good sense in tbe selection of the candidate for whom he records his vote ; we warn them that every device, honorable or the reverse, will be resorted to by the moribund Government to secure the return of probable supporters, and we entreat electors, unbiassed by election shibboleths of “ Land Nationalization," or “ Protection,” to seri- I ously and soberly consider whether! that Government has not, in every conceivable manner, forfeited the confidence of the country. In any case, the time has gone by when important | questions were decided by vindication. I Let us light this election out earnestly i and heartily, but gravely, decently and j thoughtfully, as befits the dignity of Freemen, and may the best man win !