Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1887. Mr Hogg’s Two-stringed Harp.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XX, Issue 2094, 20 July 1887, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1887. Mr Hogg’s Two-stringed Harp.

The gentleman who is editor of the * Wairarapa Star,* assistant editor of the Carterton ‘ Observer,’ candidate for Mastertou (unhappy Mastert.cn !) and factotum for Mr Bunny is supposed by some to possess the guile of the serpent rather than the harmleesness of the dove. This is an erroneous estimate. Though endowed with cunning it is of a low, unoriginal, and therefore harmless type. Having some inventive power he lacks versatility and resource. In his beautiful schemes for the benefit of his party (i.e., himseip) and the contests they involve, he has two methods only — dual strings be strums with sickening abuse and misrepresentation. On these iteration. Dares a person but oppose him, then—swollen to bursting with batian bombast—he plunges into an ecstacy of epithet and so steeps himself in scurrility that his readers or hearers become obfuscated with the odors of his obscenity. When this, his leading cord, is snapt he flies to his second and darkens daylight with delirions distortions. On this second string he is able to perform a perfect gamut, ranging! between crafty inuendo and deliberate untruth. A few days ago we shattered the string of his scurrility about his ears, we compelled him—for a time at least—-to some cleanliness of expression and he has now forsaken invective for invention, foulness for falsity. The ‘ Wairarapa Star,” of July li, contains, in|;the editorial columns, two paragraphs concerning Mr Buchanan which we have previously had no time to notice. These paragraphs contain whimpering and whiffling in equal quantities. They lead off with a whimper about Mr jßuchanan’s “ want of magnanimity, ” because, forsooth! that gentleman commented in his Carterton address upon Mr Bunny’s various and frequent changes of political front. Could anything be more childishly absurd? Mr Bunny’s journalistic mouthpieces may, it appears, make the most libellous and slanderous statements regarding Mr Buchanan and others ; may write scurrilous letters to their own papers and employ all the other ” dodges ” of disreputable “ journalism,” and neither Mr Buchanan nor anyone else may comment even in the moat gentlemanly terms on Mr Bunny’s manifold political inconsistencies ! While foulest personalities have been used by Mr Bunny’s journalistic supporters no word has been said or written by us reflecting on Mr Bunny in his private capacity. Suppose, however, we had accepted these persons’ challenge to a war of personalities, we certainly could have made matters unEasant for Mr Bunny. But we forbore; Buchanan and the Standard have treated Mr Bunny with fairness and politeness and it is puerile and untrue to say that there is any want of magnanimity iu referring to a person’s political record, and no one who Knows the alphabet of politics would have ventured such an ignorant statement. The editor of the * Star ’ calls himself a Radical and proposes iu that capacity to essay political life. The leading “ plank ” upon his “ platform ” appears to bo this : He may slander and vilify his opponents, but his adversaries may not oven refer to him in the most courteous terms. Should this gentleman, by some unheard-of accident, attain his desire, ha will quickly find that the Representatives of New Zealand are men who will suffer in silence neither his insolence nor his inuendo. Radical is a grand title, but radicalism to such men as this editor simply means license to insult and protection from reply. But mark the logic of this gentleman who proposes to make our laws. Mr Bunny’s political irreconcilabilities are, according to the 4 Star,' the brightest gems in his political diadem. Mr Buchanan has been consistent—the ‘ Star ’ admits it, and calls him a " fossil ” for it Mr Bunny has altered his opinions on many occasions—the 4 Star' admits it and declares that proves Mr Bunny a “ more experienced politician,” who ” moves with the times.” Thou, if to veer round with every change of wind and tide is so highly virtuous, how in the name of common sense, has Mr Buchanan offended ? He has simply pointed out Mr Bunny’s inconsistencies (virtues, the ' Bur ’ call them) and that is all. If this be an insult then, by parity of reasoning, if anyone called the editor of the 4 Star ’ clean-spoken and truthful ho would he insulted! Probably. So, lor too matter of that, would the common sense of the community. The editor having strummed oat his monotone of misrepresentation varies his pitch and concludes his first paragraph with a direct untruth, He accuses w Buchanan of having been the oppressor of the agricultural community,! And this is the person who mouths about “ magnanimity,”

In the second paragraph of the issue under notice the editor of the ‘ Star ’ again writes deliberate untruth —there is no other name for it. Ho, speaking of Mr Uuohauau, says;— ' dc puun .d out the injustice and anomaly o! allowing a man who had propeity worth say £IO.OOO or £20,000 to have the benefit of an exemption to the extent of £SUO.” Now this is true; this is what Mr Buchanan said. When the editor of the ! * Star ’ desires to make a peculiarly gross j distortion he commences with a little , truth so as to give a varnish to his distortion. Then he proceeds to garble ; •• He (Mr Buchanan, carefully avoided explaining to th.m that if the exemption were abolished it mean i that every settler in the colony, from tue In.iul-test laborer earning hie 5s or 6e per day to the funner with his thirty or forty actes of land, would have to pay tribute.” Now this is an untruth. It is what is termed the “ lie inferential; ” a suppression of truth by which a convenient untruth is inferred. Mr Buol auan said that men ot large incomu should not be allowed any exemption, but that he I woti’d not interfere with the oiopiptiou of meu of saaU incomes. There are no words permissible to ' journalism whl-.T adequately characterize the mshon • v *y of the person whose paragraphs v, u avo noticed. Again we say, must rot it cause be weak which resorts to I such devices ? Not content with the J ‘ (Ibserver,’ the ‘ Star ’ is dragged in to assist in the work of misrepresentation, I and these not being sufficient, the Wellington ‘ Post ’ leads a hand at the unsavory job. Wc fear them not, however, individually or collectively. We have 'truth ui.drl;;ht on oa.- .lie, P-d th.'.lcv j-nvtoU Xu; ' r iiO quilt , just,