The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA" TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1909. KIER HARDIE'S REPUDIATION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12259, 6 July 1909, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA" TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1909. KIER HARDIE'S REPUDIATION.

"Mr Keir Hardie repudiates the murder!" This is perhaps the most significant message that has come over tho cable since Sir William Wyllie was done to death by an Indian anarchist. At lunch on the day appointed for his assassination, and speaking presumably without any consciousness or his impending rate, the doomed man remarked tr> a guest that "no other nation would permit such an incendiary proceeding as Mr Keir Hardies tour of India." Read in the light of the. tragedy which was enacted g few-hours Jater, this statement, coupled with Mr Keir Hurdie's hasty repudiation of .responsibility, affords food for serious thought. Unfortunately for the poace ol mind of the hot-tongued Socialist, lie cannot so easily divest himself of indirect responsibility for Dhinagri's crime, That he deliberately ee^-himself to the proportion of murder and anarchy no ou<; would suggest. It may evon be .conceded that-his'misguided crusade in India was inspired by worthy .'motives. I But if Wf> put. this charitable construction upon his -rebellious utterances '' t-y the disaffected Indians, we at once emphasise tho peril of irre.:p-m7b!e ag;ta-

tiou. Whether' he intended to do s."> or not, Mr Keir Hard.c certainly dkl i'an tho tiames of anarchy and encourage the spirit of rebellion. As waa pointed out at the time, his rash and

unguarded words could have no other offect. Individually his opinion might count for little, even in India. In this i Dominon the workers scarcely thanked him for his unasked for interference on their behalf. In England he counts for little, and hereafter will count for less. But in India, speaking as a member of the House of Commons and as a repreeontativo of the British. people,, his j words would be as oil upon the ready I kindlings of native discontent, requiring but the spark of opportunity tostart the flame cf murder. He was warned of the evil ho was doing, but ho did not desist. Ho met the storm of indignant criticism and condemnation which his speeches aroused, not only in India but throughout the Empire, with, a shrug of his irresponsible shoulders, and continued to talk as the humour seized him. And now—when, perhaps, tho wisdoni of his critics and the ignorant, criminality of his own behaviour is beginning to dawn upon hm—he hastens to repudiate responsibility for the tragic death of a loyal and able representative of His Majesty tho King. Alarmed at tho world-wide resentment winch the outrage has aroused, ho cries "I didn't do it!" Who said he did? Does not his hasty repudiation, suggest ' a measure of self-condemnation? Surely repudiation would not havo preceded accusation, if his conscience was' clear of the dread that his words had quickened the hand of the murderer. Let | us, however, assume that Dhinagri was I not influenced by Keir Hardies utterances, that he neither heard nor read any of his inflammatory speeches. " Ifc is almost inconceivable that this should be the case, and tho assumption might justifiably be regarded as ridiculous. most the assumption could imply would be that so far as this particular murder is concerned Keir Hardies repudiation had boen accidentally justified. The real lesson of the tragedy would remain unaffected. The treasonable criminality of the irresponsible agitator would not be mitigated, and the perilous influence of his unbridled defamation of law and order and administrative authority would be rendered air the more plainly obvious. Liberty of speech is a priceless right which no true Britisher is willing to. surrender, but it is time we began ta discriminate between liberty and license, and to curb the tongues of tho:© xrho are unable to realise the eerioussess of speech as applied ta the solution of national problems.