The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1014. THE "LIBERAL" LEADER AND THE STRIKE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 20054, 14 April 1914, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1014. THE "LIBERAL" LEADER AND THE STRIKE.

The " Herald," having vainly attempted to successfully defend Sir Joseph Ward's attitude towards the strike, and having apparently exhausted its abusive vocabulary in a series of violent outbursts againist the "Chronicle," is now reduced to the extremity of proclaiming that we have repudiated the charges which we made in the first instance. This bluff is evidently intended for those of its readers who follow only the one side of the controversy. Those who have read both sides do not need to be assured1 that we have not abated to the extent of one jot our well deserved condemnation of the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is that the " Herald" chose to misrepresent what we said, and practically asserted that we had charged Sir Joseph Ward with openly advocating lawlessness. We did nothing of the kind. From the way the "Herald" puts it it might easily be assumed that we had pictured Sir Joseph Ward as a mob orator mounted on a cart-tail in Post Office Square in company with the cultured autocrats of the Red Federation, blatantly denouncing the Government for its unflinching determination to suppress the law-breakers. We did not put it like that or in any way capable of being so interpreted, because, much as we. blame Sir Joseoh Ward for what

he did do and for what (he failed to do, we should be sorry to think that he wilfully and intentionally encouraged the strikers in their lawlessness. No, the case against him is sufficiently strong without resorting to the absurdity of an allegation which could not be substantiated. The "Herald" challenged us to justify our condemnation of Sir Joseph Ward by evidence culled from the pages of "Hansard." We did so, with the result that the "Herald" became even more violently abusive than before. And now, whippedl to the last ditch, it resorts in a last despairing effort to the purile bluff that the " Chronicle" says it- did not say what it did say, when, if it told the simple truth, it would say that the "Chronicle" says it did not say what the "Herald" says it said, but that it did say—and still maintains—that Sir Joseph Ward failed to play the part of a statesman at a time of national emergency, and that his attitude and utterances were not such as to assist towards the restoration of law and order. And now in conclusion, and as evidence that we do not in any sense modify our criticism of the "Liberal" Leader, we repeat what tve said in a former article: —The " Herald" would be well advised to refrain from attempting to defend Sir Joseph Ward's attitude towards the strike. That distinguished knight may bluff and bluster to the full extent of his ornate vocabulary, but his abusive denunciation of his political opponents will not avail to free him from the discredit which rightly attaches to him by reason of his failure to take a bold and statesmanlike stand on the side of law and order. When the country was face to face with the crisis what did Sir Joseph do? Nothing. What remedy did he suggest? None. What did he say? Did he, as the responsible Leader of the Opposition, use words designed to assist the Government to end the strike by making it clear to the lawless agitators that the representatives of the people in Parliament were united in their determination to protect the community? No. Not only did he fail to help, .but (by his injudicious and untimely utterances) he helped to hinder.