The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1905. "IF IT IS ALLOWED TO BE PUBLISHED."

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12657, 20 November 1905, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1905. "IF IT IS ALLOWED TO BE PUBLISHED."

In the course of his remarks at the open-air " No-License" meeting on Saturday evening, Mr Palmer, the President of the Wanganui Licensed Victuallers' Association, saw fit to go out of his way to pass a gratuitous and unwaairanta'ble (reflection on the " Chronicle." Referring to a letter which, he said, Mr W. T. Benefield had written in reference to the Tecent Aramoho meeting, and which, he suggested, substantiated the correctness of the Press Association message, -which he (Mr Palmer) had inspired, he "went on to say that the letter " would appear in Monday morning's paper, if it is allowed to be published." Our readers will see at once the significance of the concluding portion of this statement. The onlyinference to be drawn from Mr Palmer's ungenerous words was that it was doubtful whether a letter representing their side of the question would be admitted to our columns. (No one knows better than Mr Palmer how absolutely impartial we have been in the conduct of our correspondence columns. .He knows perfectly <well that we have accorded free admission to all letters, anonymous and, otherwise, "which have been sent or -brought to us by writers in defence of License, and we challenge him to cite one instance of a refusual on our part to publish any letter which could legitimately be published in the columns of a public newspaper. On the vary morning of the day on which he went out of his way to publicly level an imputation of unfairness at the " Chronicle " there appeared one anonymous " liquor " letter which alone monopolised more tihan a column of our space, in addition to w^hioh there .also appeared two other letters, one of which was signed by the ■ legal advjser of the Incensed Victuallers' Association. And, curiously enough, on that same morning only one letter, and that a short one, appeared • from the pen of » " NoLicense " (writer. Haw, then, can he justify the suggestion, of prohibitive partiality on our part with which he supplemented his reference to Mr Benefield's letter? Was it, may w$ ask, the outcome of a sudden awakening? Did it occur to (Mr Palmer, in a flash of inspiration, as dt were, that a boycott on

our part would be but a legitimate quid pro quo for the boycott to which he and bis Association have subjected the> "Chronicle"? Did it suddenly striker Mir Palmer tlhat it was perhaps a littl© bit mean to flood the columns of the. "Ohronicle" with fbek correspondence and to withhold from it the daily column of advertising matter for th&inserbidrt 6f which they would have t» pay? And»did it, at the same time, occur- to Mr Palmer that the action of the Licensed Victuallers was in this respect in marked contrast to the im-paa-tiality of their "No-iLicense" opponents? Probably so, and in that case, Mr Palmer's words may perhaps be con~ etrued into an admission as to Which hehimself would do under similar circumstances, rather than as having been deliberately intended to convey to the= public the actual literal meaning of the* words themselves. We msy say at once, if, indeed it is at all necessary for us. ■to say so, that we are in no way concerned at the absence of the liquor party's advertisement from our columns.. We simply mention it in order to emphasise tihe '... unfairness of Mr Palmer's, statement.