The Evening Star SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3231, 28 June 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 1873.

Our contemporary the Daily Times is once more sick. Being a strict observer of times and seasons, the records of the past have been raked up, and the anniversary of the announcement by Mr Vogel of the public works scheme'is found to be this day. Accordingly one of those fits of apprehension to which our ailing contemporary is so liable has seized him, and he is shaking all over like one afflicted with the ague, Mr Vogel anticipated realising a nett revenue of LIO,OOO in three years from the adoption of his plans by the country, from those lines or portions of lines which would be in operation, and the Daily Times ingeniously hits upon the date of the proposition as the period when the prediction became due. It allows no grace, but requires fulfilment, say, some twelve months before the contract time. We are told that though the three years are passed away, “ we cannot say we are enjoying a nett revenue of LIO,OOO a-year from railways,” nor is it clear that other anticipations have been realised. Apart from the fact that in large public works inevitable delays occur which commonly prevent their completion within the time agreed upon, our sickly contemporary has not taken into account the difference between a proposition made and the time when it was adopted. He has not estimated the waste of time caused by unforeseen hindrances, such as the difficulties raised by old wives’ fears like his own. The impediments nervous people throw in the way of well-conceived schemes very frequently go far to mar their usefulness and prevent their success. If. the quakings and forebodings of the Daily Times had been allowed to prevail, Otago, instead of being a land giving promise of rapid development, would hate remained a land of sheepwalks and cockatoos, whose main amusement would have been quarrelling with the miners, curtailing their privileges and impounding their cattle. We can hardly understand the end and purpose of the diseased article in this morning’s issue. It seems as if it had a two or threefold object, not one purpose of which is clearly opened up. Number one, apparently, is an attack upon Mr Vogel, under the idea that because the Daily Times cannot see that LIO,OOO a year has been netted before the time predicted, therefore he is a false prophet and not to be relied on. Suppose we turn the tables, and draw our contemporary's attention to a few articles published in his columns a very short time before the Dunedin and Port Chalmers Railway line was opened. We have not thought it necessary to seek them up, for the style of argument must be too fresh in the minds of those few of our readers who perused them to need quotation. At any rate, it will be recollected that in an occasional Editorial, and still more frequently by that most astute financier, Master Humphrey, it was proved beyond all cavil that that line of railway was a mistake; that it was not needed, and that it was impossible to compete with the natural mode of communication with the river. Yet how stands the truth? Not only has the railway proved a very highly remunerative investment, but the mode of communication by the river is found not to be able to compete with the railway. As a financial success, it has succeeded beyond the most sanguine expectations of the promoters. Applying the test the Editor measures Mr Vogel by, to the Daily Times, what reliance can be placed on its predictions? The great probabability is, that Mr Vogel’s anticipations may and will be realised within a very few months—sufficiently near the time, at any rate, to justify the grounds on which he based his calculations. But the predictions of the Times are proved to be false. It is not a question of “ may bes” or “ possibilitiesit is a matter of fact—the profitable traffic of the Port Chalmers line of railway is a standing denunciation of the politics of the Daily Times. The second object seems to be to disparage New Zealand as compared with other Colonies; and this, either through ignorance of facts or through wilful perversion of them. We are told that we are doing exactly the reverse of what is done in other Colonies, because it is assumed the question of Provincial liability is left to be determined in the future, while in those “ other Colonies nothing is left for the future to adjust: the districts to be benefited are parties to the transaction.” We like fair play, and therefore esteem it the duty of our contemporary to name a Colony, excepting New Zealand, in which a Government scheme of railway has to be

adjusted with any Province or district hedged in by similar local institutions. •Alt other Colonies have been settled mainly from one centre, and are governed by one Governmentbut New Zealand having teen peopled from diners centres, has interests and difficulties to adjust requiring totally different treatment, and any fancied analogy wholly fails. That which is absoliitely requisite in New Zealand would be waste of legislation elsewhere. The third Apparent object is to show that the immigration scheme must fail, unless the immigrants can settle down and support themselves. Nobody, not even the Ddily Times , disputes that* Our candid contemporaiy, in his usual slip-shod style of logic, asks “ Where is this settlement being effected, excepting at one or two points 1” This quibble on the word “ settlement ” is worthy of the journal. Our interpretation of it is that immigrants who earn their own living, and are content to remain in the Colony are settlers. It does not mean that a man or a family are to be planted on one spot like a cherry tree, and stick there and grow. And, we ask, what better proof is there of the settling of the country than the increase of immigration over emigration, coupled with the rate of wages and general prosperity? Fair criticism never injures any cause. If- there be faults, they ought to be pointed out j if mismanagement, it should be corrected; if corruption j it ought to be exposed ; but where assertions are made which are contradicted by the evidence of abundant facts, and where the publication of such assertions tends to damage a community, we know no term sufficiently condemnatory of the procedure.