E i view of Rev iewf, i 111 /it 



86i 



THE "HERALD" ON DEFENCE. 



My esteemed contemporar}-, the 

 Herald (Melbourne) devoted its lirst 

 leader on Monday, October 20th, to m\- 

 article about the Defence Act, which ap- 

 peared on September Qth. In a most 

 courteous manner it took me to task for 

 \enturing to have formed any opinion 

 on the working of the Act after only 

 seven months' study thereof. It was 

 good enough to point out that I had 

 been careful not to prejudice my mind 

 by acquiring knowledge of the subject 

 before writing about it. It said many 

 other complimentary things in the same 

 vein, and tore passion to tatters in its 

 eagerness to show that the Act was im- 

 mensely popular. The writer had evi- 

 dently read my article, part of it, at an)- 

 rate, for he quoted odd sentences here and 

 there, to punctuate his remarks, and 

 round off his lecture. Some people ir- 

 sist, indeed, that he was not quite fair in 

 the criticisms he meant to be so crushing, 

 but I would not go so far as that. I 

 think, if I may repeat his own words, he 

 was merely " careful not to jirejudice his 

 mind by acquiring knowledge of his sub- 

 ject before writing about it." 



What appears to have hurt the Herald 

 most of all was that I had referred to a 

 " conspiracy of silence " in the jiress. 

 W'hy, " on the contrar}', the pa]3ers have 

 been most unequivocal and repeatedly 

 outspoken in praise of the x'Xct, and their 

 columns are open for adverse comment — 

 of which there is very little." Had the 

 Herald stated "of which very little is 

 allowed to appear," it would have been 

 more accurate. 



Since this little breeze over my article 

 far more has been published in criticism 

 of the detail working of the Act than 

 ever before. My remark, even if untrue, 

 as stated by the Herald, has had some 

 useful result. I happened to be away in 

 Svdney when the hrst comment on ni\' 

 article appeared in the Herald, and, 

 being much occupied on my return, did 

 not see its leader until it was shown me 

 the day after it appeared. I ventured to 

 write a mild i)rotest to the editor, ])oint- 

 ing out that he seemed to assume that 1 

 was against the whole Defence Scheme, 



whereas 1 only criticised the part of the 

 Act relating to land forces. A few 

 days later my letter was duly pub- 

 lished, together with an interesting 

 editorial comment. The editor appeared 

 to be grieved because he gathered from 

 mv letter that I was not a close reader 

 of the Herald. 



I feel that I must put him right on 

 that point. I read his excellent paper 

 regularh' — when I am in Alelbourne. I 

 do not see it in S\'dney, but I have no 

 doubt copies could be obtained there if 

 one knew where to go for them. Since 

 the Tin:es cables, \ia the S)'dney Sun, 

 have appeared in its columns, I expect 

 that I do better than most of its readers, 

 for I get at least two copies daily. 



In his comments the editor conveys 

 the impression that no one could be up 

 to dale who did not read the Herald. 

 He IS quite right. Being the only even- 

 ing paper in Melbourne, it is quite in- 

 dispensable. People must get it for the 

 da\-'s news, and the foreign cables. 

 Greatly as its clever leaders may be ad- 

 mired for their well-balanced and lucid 

 style, no one thinks of turning to them 

 for guidance in municipal or political 

 matters, or for inspiration in difficult 

 national or imperial situations. No 

 other o-reat citv in the world has had to 

 be satisfied with only one evening paper, 

 and it is good to know that Melbourne 

 will soon have this disadvantage re- 

 moved. Naturally people will welcome a 

 second pajier, although having been ac- 

 customed for so long to accept thank- 

 fully whatever they were given, it will 

 be an unusual exjierience for them to 

 find their requirements and convenience 

 carefully considered in future. 



I much apiireciate the kindly way 

 in which the editor refers to the 

 Review of Reviews, and really rc;?,ret 

 that in concluding his admirable para- 

 graph he should ha\-e so far for- 

 gotten what he wrote six days before as 

 to state that the Herald had " already 

 published luauy letters adversely criticis- 

 ing the compulsory drill provisions of 

 the Defence .\ct." "Of adverse com- 

 ment," he had iireviousl\- told us. "there 

 was very little." 



