THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR o'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1877.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2530, 14 February 1877, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR o'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1877.

That part of a newspnper which is devoted to what is called leading matterso called probably because it is supposed either to comment on facts elsewhere recorded, and lead or endeavour to lead its readers to think and act, if need be, in. accordance with its own views,cpr else to set the present clearly before ihem, and to deduce that which shall.be from that which is, and thus in a mild way verge on the prophetical—is supposed to embody the ideas of the management, to grffcj as it were, a tone to the paper, anH to condemn or approve of unde* the guise of the editorial '■' we" whatever there is to Jblame or praise in actions of communities or individuals. If this portion, be well written it is generally read, and even if lacking brilliant writing it be but an honest, straightforward comment on the subject taken in hand, it is generally read and treated with respect, though those who read it may differ widely from the opinions expressed. Writing leaders is no doubt a: wearisome task* that is, when the writing has, as is very often the case in small communities where there is not much stirring, to be forced, and the few ideas that suggest themselves have to be spun out j or beaten put as it were with a hammer until the whole matter of which the leader is composed becomes of a very thread-bare and flimsy texture. It may in truth be said of a man who writes leaders, as has been said of a man who writes sermons, that many a man in a given apace of time can write one, a very clever man can write two, and any fool can write three; and this will often be found to be the case; There appeared in Saturday's Advertiser a leader something about waste tends—the production, probably, of the pen of so,me w jjentleman capable of writing three leaders in a day—in which the writer remarks, among other things, " We have never seen a country so prosperous from the easy facilities for settlement and cultivation as to cause a glut in the markets beyond its general requirements." We commend the sentence as one likely, if set by the Inspector of Schools at his next examination for the pupils to parse, to cause some difficulty to the rising grammarians of the age. This by-the-bye. The writer, it will be observed, starts with the assertion that "we have never seen;" he may be a near connection of the editor who could not find a paragraph in his own paper. We only quote this sentence to show that the writer of such is totally ignorant of the rudiments of that science which is called political economy, in fcbat he seems to think, or at any rate implies as much, that if a country can produce more than it requires for its own use, to use his own words, " cause a glut in the market," such country is in a bad way, which he further implies in his next sentence by saying that in New' Zealand the time is far distant when such a.contingency may arise. Now one of the principal theories held regarding the prosperity of a country is that there should be " a glut in the market" as far as the requirements of the country is concerned, that is that the country should be able to supply all its inhabitants at a moderate rate, and yet have ample store to export to other countries. In short the prosperity of a country does not depend so much on the value of its imports, as on that of its exports. The former takes money out of the country to be expended elsewhere ; the latter brings money into the country to assist iv developing those resources which brought the money received for exports in the first case, and so increases that which first produced it. The Advertiser fails to .see this, as it-is afraid that we shall produce so much that we will not be able to dispose of it, a state of things, we agree with it, which is not likely to take place. This, and similar sentences to this, were designated by a Mr Stephenson of this town as "jigamaree twaddle" in a letter he wrote on the subject/and this remark' set fire to the Advertiser's slumbering passions. It may be remembered that it was not so long ago the Advertiser, having involved itself in virtue of the Pecksniffian kind, treated its readers to a chapter on the ethics of journalism, and deprecated all personal remark as being beneath the character of a journal of so high a standard as itself. If is true it did not resolve its theory into practice, but that should not detract from the value of the article in the least, for, somehow, we read, the greatest philosophers have been unable to do this, besides at that time it had not had the term " jigamaree twaddle" applied to its own writings. This last epithet was too much* and so the Advertiser " went for " the culprit with a vengeance. Mr Stephenson must be a very bad man if all the offences attributed to him are true bills. He will not assist to produce [a journal of high

principles at the cost of 2d per copy, but prefers dealing out " mugs of fourpenny," and committing other heinous offences in connection with his calling, which is by liis own showing that of a quiet inn-keeper; by the showing, of the journal which deprecates personalities that of. " a pothouse politician." The whole of. the article, in facVteems with vulgar abase, and wrong motives attributed to Mr Stephenson, who is held up as a type of the selfish, interested hypocrite, trying to serve his own ends by trading on the cry of " land for the. people." As a specimen of abuse uncalled for —when once you get over that word jigamaree—iti« undoubtedly good ; as an attempt —the second in one day—to write a leader it is about as great a failure as could possibly be imagined.