The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3153, 28 March 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1873.

There is something remarkably “ cheeky,” to use a now accepted slang term, in the way in which our elastic contemporary the Daily Times deals with passing events. Consistent only in its virulence against Mr Vogel, to whose genius the journal owes its position, every thing bad that happens, according to that paper, is ruled by his evil genius. Were the intellectual somersaults which the Daily Times displays gratuitously, cleverly performed, there would be something to admire, for it is always interesting to witness an adroit deception. But the turnings and twistings of that most unreliable journal are so clumsily done, that not even the dullest reader can be deceived as to the motive. What a mighty blaze of assumed virtuous wrath and insulted intellectual might issued from that seething cauldron of malice prepense, yesterday morning! What an utter forgetfulness of all that had been printed in its columns for the last two years!—of the articles pointing out that the railway was unnecessary ; that instead of it there should have been a deepened harbor, that it would be a financial failure, and that it was a mistake ! Under cover of admitting correspondence, a paid bilious contributor prophesied evil, up to the time and even after the opening of the railway. But now that it has proved a success and all the predictions are falsified, the journal turns its imbecile ravings upon the head of Mr Vogel, and blames him for not being wiser and more far-seeing than themselves. We have heard it gaid by counsel, when engaged to de*

fend a prisoner, “now do not tell me too much of your case,” and lie explained it afterwards by telling us, “ If I knew the follow to bo guilty, I could not defend him as I ought.” It may, therefore, suit the Daily Times , in his onslaught upon Mr Vogel, not to know too much of the case. But this will hardly go down with the public. A journalist who acts on that principle, and attacks an imaginary case, is not likely to do much credit to the newspaper with which he is connected, nor to have his opinions accepted. Yet, on the most reliable authority, we are justified in repeating what was said to us on the subject, “There is not one word of truth in the statements in that article from beginning to end.” In the first place, the arrangements for the Port Chalmers Railway construction were made before the Public Works Scheme was adopted by the General Assembly. And those who will allow themselves to recall what took place in regard to it, will remember perfectly, that they were made almost in defiance of tlm General Government. It was found impossible to obtain a Bill giving authority to the Province to borrow the money; and there is every reason to believe that the Port Chalmers Railway formed part of the railway scheme not then proposed. But when did the Daily Times perceive that it was to be such an excellent investment? Before it was opened, was there one word said in that journal recommending the General Government to buy it? Was there not, on the other hand, every effort made to shew that railways could not compete with natural water communication, and not a few direct attempts to depreciate the value of the line? That the General Government did contemplate using, if not taking over the railway, is shewn by the fact that in order to meet their wishes the promoters altered the gauge ; nor were the Executive slow to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the line, which we have no hesitation in saying they have obtained below its actual value as an investment. Our contemporary is evidently inclined to run a muck against jetty dues being remitted on railway-borne goods. This no doubt is a very taking subject, but he must not suppose that he will meet with the sympathy of men who can reason. Why should the company be condemned as holding in their hands “ a monopoly of a most irritating character in connection with the jetty dues ?” Was it to be expected that a company would enter upon the construction of works, without any security, from investing in which the most able citizens shrank ? Does the Daily Times forget that the Company which fell through did not consider the jetty dues sufficient, and wanted security on a block of land as well ? Is it not a fact that, in order to render the railway useful, a very large area of jetty accommodation is required at Port* Chalmers, and that a jetty has been run out into deep water, alongside which vessels of the largest burden can lie for discharge or loading? And what man or company would provide such appliances, by means of which freights will be lowered, and savings of time, interest, damage to goods, and consequent economy of capital effected, if they were to be taxed with jetty dues as well ? They would say, “If we provide jetty room, we are surely entitled to have the dues remitted ; for they were imposed for the purpose of improving and maintaining jetty accommodation, and we, not the Province, have provided it,” The jetty dues, when laid out by the Provincial Government, have not done much for us. They have provided three or four wharves, now well nigh useless because of the absurd direction of what was intended to be a training wall, causing the deep water to be on the opposite side of the harbor; and had it been left to the Province to muddle away the dues, goods would have been still as long on their voyage from Port Chalmers as from England, and customers would have still had to pay, not only the freight from Horae but the expenses of the vessel lying in the Port until discharged by lighters. Were it not for the untruthfulness and bitter malevolence of the article, it would have been unworthy of serious attention; and we only notice it, lest it should be supposed truth, justice, and common sense are not to be found in the Province, or the Press would not dare to publish such glaring nonsense.