The Evening Star TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1870

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2145, 22 March 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1870

Ip our contemporary of the Daily Times had studied to bring his journal into contempt, he could not have adopted a readier plan than that pursued with regard to the war policy of the present administration. The article this morning, intended specially for England, is a gross misrepresentation from beginning to end. It professes to draw a parallel between Mr Fox and Mr Stafford, broadly and manifestly to cast discredit upon the one and to laud the other. The effort to do this is a

ludicrous exhibition of bad logic and self-contradiction. We have on more than one occasion pointed out the wide difference between the two policies, so that it is not necessary to repeat it. The Daily Times, however, sees no difference, and says—“ Although there was “ some reason to suspect at the time “ that his (Mr Fox’s) policy would prove “ to be very much the same as his pre- “ decessor’s, few perhaps were prepared “ to find that it was absolutely the “ same, the only difference consisting in “ the results.” ‘ Now one thing is very clear : If the policy of Mr Stafford were good, and that of Mr Fox is “ absolutely the same,” it follows that what was good in the one case cannot be bad in the other ; and as for the results, as one is seen and the other unseen, we apprehend, as consequences follow from antecedents, they ought to have been the same in both. But in the same article, about half a column further on, wo read that, although it was previously averred, the policy of the two men was “ absolutely the “ same ”

Mr Fox, however, now took office, and instead of considering the war from a national point of view, thought fit to treat it as a political question. The campaign must needs be fought by Ministers, however little they might know about the subject, and thoir opinion must bo different from Mr Stafford’s to justify their efforts to displace him. Therefore everything that Mr Stafford had done or intended to do, Mr box at once without enquiry reversed.

Perhaps there may be those who can reconcile these two statements : for our own parts wo confess we cannot. Then there are other statements which, although we are not prepared with evidence to contradict, we have no hesitation whatever in pronouncing untrue. It is attempted by implication to show that the expenses of the war will prove as heavy under Mr Fox’s administration as under that of Mr Stafford, and by every possible contrast, altogether irrespective of time and circumstances, the effort is made to shew how superior the Stafford plans were to those of Mr Fox. Luckily the Daily Times can boast of little influence upon Colonial politics. The simple fact of Tb Kooti being still at large, is no justification for the misrepresentations, Otago had quite enough of Mr Stafford and his maladministration, and suffered quite sufficient from his war and domestic policies to deprecate any attempt whatever to restore him to office. That he left a legacy to Mr Fox that must prove troublesome for a while is but too true. In all probility had Mr Fox been in office the rebels would never have escaped from al time have 'been”cultivating his potato patches in peace, instead of being a proscribed rebel, drawing after himself the accumulated thirst for vengeance of his own countrymen and the Colonists. Mr Fox’s Government has done much for the pacification of the country : we venture to say it has been done at light expense, and nothing is more to be feared than the return to office of the Stafford Ministry, who first invited war by their want of preparation, and intensified its evils by incompetence and extravagance.