Perilous Scramble_ was one of the best-known of _Scramble_ 's articles and was reprinted many times by other publications. That July was also the first time a major newspaper quoted the _Sydney Morning Herald_ without using a picture, although in December _The Age_ reproduced the article with an illustration of a ship going down. It was the _Herald_ 's decision to use drawings in the illustrations that led the _Truth_ to comment: We regret that the _Sydney Morning Herald_ makes no exception in its policy of sending out to Australia some of the most brutal imaginable illustrations, and thus keeping it under a delusion that Australia is a kind of Africa, where every white man is a cannibal... To illustrate a shipwreck, it has sent down with it six pictures of cannibals sitting around a table dismembering human flesh; in one the head is laid out ready to be cooked and eaten; another shows a head skinned and prepared for roasting. This stuff is the vile handiwork of a few scoundrels who get their miserable pittances out of the _Sydney Morning Herald_ for the disgusting job of drawing so-called 'funny pictures'. The _Truth_ said that if the article was a joke, it was not a good one, as the men in the picture looked 'in a very sickly and deplorable condition'. It did, however, report that 'when they saw what awful cartoons had been drawn by the men who draw the funny-picture of the _Sydney Morning Herald_ , the cannibals were so disgusted and humiliated that they did not touch the mutton'. The _Herald_ was not always the target of criticism, but it did run some of the most popular cartoons from other papers. When it reprinted the American cartoonists' cartoons from _Puck_ on its front page, _The Bulletin_ commented that 'the _Herald_ has done what in past years the _Examiner_ refused to do – they've copied our cartoons'. But the only other cartoon reprinted that year was a drawing of a naked woman in a bathtub, with an accompanying caption that read 'Some Australian women are learning to swim'. This was not reprinted until December. It is interesting to note that by November the editor of _Smith's Weekly_ , Frank Munro, was reporting that _Smith's_ was doing better than the _Bulletin_ because it had the support of all class-conscious organisations. The cartoons came under close criticism, and in October the _Sydney Mail_ reported that the _Bulletin_ was 'getting more objectionable than ever – even a lunatic asylum would not like to put on its wall as a decoration the many cartoon drawings which appear in it from time to time'. A year earlier the _Mail_ had also reprinted a _Bulletin_ drawing of a naked woman, with a caption that read: 'See Australian women, one of them is a "mother", the other a mother-in-law.' Other attacks centred on the size of the headlines, the amount of advertising allowed, and the fact that the paper was sold at a variety of retail outlets. While the newspapers were running regular pieces, there was also much criticism from the press in the form of letters to the editor. Many focused on the lack of political direction. This criticism was particularly strong when two articles in the _Sydney Morning Herald_ were very critical of the Australian Workers' Union. The _Truth_ saw them as evidence that there were members of parliament who were 'not averse to working for the destruction of Federation', and felt it was impossible that there was not at least one member of the Federal government who was working against the federation movement: What has been the consequence of this in the past?... it may be inferred that the men who have taken part in the attack on federation have been encouraged and encouraged by the men who really count in the parliamentary life of the country. The latter... may, in future, find themselves in a minority, unless they are prepared to do what all politicians who possess an unbiased conscience would like to do – leave their parties and their constituencies. We regret the tone which has been assumed, and all its consequences in the formation of the federation. In a letter in June 1910, an anonymous writer warned the prime minister that if he did not get the country united, the consequences would be dire. A man in the electorate of Barrier told the _South Australian Register_ that if the government did not provide for him, and 'give them some decent employment', he would take up arms to defend himself. In October a writer to the _Sydney Morning Herald_ stated that 'while we have in the past been accused of not talking enough on the question of separation, if the Prime Minister of this day has anything to say to his colleagues or electorate he can and will say it and in the proper way – as far as I can see by means of the press'. He accused the government of trying to 'silence the press', and warned of the result of allowing the newspaper attacks to continue. _The Australasian_ continued to print letters criticising articles in its pages. In January 1909, a letter published was entitled 'The Truth About Bimetallism'. It said that 'if you had a newspaper worthy of the name you should have put an end to those who were misleading your readers on the question of bimetallism, by showing what a bad bargain it is'. The writer, who gave his name as an 'Australian Citizen', said that the Australian public had not been treated fairly on the matter. He claimed that 'you have tried to make it appear that the only possible issue between Australia and Britain, now that bimetallism has ceased, is one of an unbreakable enmity on the part of Australia and France, and that a war is inevitable'. The writer urged his readers to 'have no more to do with any such "sheet" as yours', which would 'lead the thinking portion of Australia' to believe 'Australia is bent on war'. By March 1909 the _Bulletin_ had an article in the Australian section about a man who had arrived in Sydney. A correspondent said: It was, perhaps, inevitable that a man who had given as a reason for coming to Australia that he was tired of the restrictions and restrictions which are not only the curse of England, but are very dear to most people who live under her flag should receive the most cordial reception and hospitality. There was also, apparently, 'much surprise' in the man's 'native city that his first visit was not to the home of his fathers, but to Australia. Many other persons in England were, it is believed, equally surprised at this, but they are glad that this man found a land so suited to his needs and temperament'. The man had made several trips to England, but did not find much that he liked about the place, because it was 'dominated by the most ignorant and uneducated class the world has ever seen'. He claimed that while he had never felt comfortable in any part of the world where he had lived, he felt perfectly at home in Australia. The _Bulletin_ and _Sydney Mail_ were also blamed for a series of articles that appeared in April criticising local businesses. The _Bulletin_ called them 'the most sensational of sensational features, being an alleged and deliberate attempt on the part of certain firms to wreck the retail trade of the country'. The _Bulletin_ reported: That such is the case has been admitted by gentlemen in authority, but what is the real object of the agitation? The people... are not given to understand that these men want to ruin the colony, but that they want to get more money from the colony for themselves and a few of their friends. The articles were not so much attacks on the business community as on the trade unions. The number of different publications and the variety of newspapers with which they had connections meant that there were different attitudes to news and current events. In terms of news, in 1909 there were three daily newspapers, two semi-weekly newspapers, six weekly publications, two monthly publications, and a bi-monthly publication. The two weekly publications were a big advance on the situation in the 1890s, when only one weekly paper had a regular publication schedule. The _Sydney Morning Herald_ , the largest paper in the colony, had the most coverage in the press, but also had the most coverage in other papers, and a large number of people relied on one of the numerous bi-monthly publications, some of which had circulation of 50,000. That there were so many publications and so many different views indicates that the political life of the colony was still fluid. Each publication had a different readership, and as the country's population grew, so too did the number of people who might wish to read about local issues. The _Bulletin_ and the _Smith's Weekly_ competed for readers. The _Smith's Weekly_ was a new publication in 1909, and as well as the _Bulletin_ , was published in the same building as _The Age_. It had recently ceased publication for a time when its printer went bankrupt, but was resuming when it bought the _Bulletin_. The _Bulletin_ and the _Smith's Weekly_ had a similar format, both being sold on newsstands. Both were printed on '