The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1882.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4250, 15 August 1882, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1882.

Fob mendacious calumny com mend'us to a leading article which appears in the New Zealand Herald of yesterday relative to the conduct of the Auckland members in voting for the Want-of-Confidence motion. One contemporary's arguments are based upon a false issue, and falsehoods are piled upon misrepresentations so thickly that the only reason there are no more of either is because the column of print devoted to the subject is absolutely full of them. Here is a fair sample to begin with. The Herald says:—" It is humi'iating to think that if the construction of this Auckland railway, to which every one of our members was pledged, had depended on the votes of the Auckland members, the Bill would have been lost, the work would have been postponed for ten years, and almost the whole of the money now to be raised would have been spent in the South. And yet that is simply the state of the case." There is only one possible answer to that assertion: it is wholly and unqualifiedly untrue. As a mattei of fact every one of the white men who represent Auckland constituencies, with the exception of Messrs Sheehan and Swanson, voted for the borrowing of that particular loan of one million pounds. But here is the sore point, and we give it in our contemporary's own language:—" Probably each man of the nine Auckland members who endeavored to prevent Auckland obtaining this railway will have some paltry excuse or another. But they cannot possibly get out of this, that they have done all in their power to oust the Government which proposed to make provision for the work, and to instal another which was opposed to it." The individual who penned those-words need never lament, " Had I a heart for falsehood framed," for, he himself is the embodiment of that quality. He unblushingly mixes up two distinct matters. In order to understand clearly the duplicity and dishonesty of the Herald, it is necessary to bear in mind that the NoConfidence motion was not aimed at this million loan, but at the financial proposals of the Government generally, those being the terms of Mr Montgomery's resolution. When the Opposition thought they were strong enough,they determined to challenge the Government, and upon what ? Upon this million loan? Decidedly not, but upon their proposal, firstly to borrow,, secondly the amount to be borrowed. The loan proposals were included in two bills, one for three millions and the other for one"million. It so happened that the Government chose to submit the smaller one first. The Opposition, having deter* mined to attack, the question was—What form was this attack to take? That was easily determined. The borrowing pro-, posala of the Government being though* their weakest point, it was resolved to concentrate the Opposition forces upon

thafc^ centre, and subsequently, as is invariably the case,.extend the line of fire along.the whole,ratige of the Government policy throughout the debate. , That being decided, the opportunity was seized to open fire when the proposals were submitted to the House. That the most

exposed position of the' Government citadel was the million loan bill was the misfortune of that measure, but the fault lay with the Government who placed it it in the forefront of the battle, and the Opposition were in no way to blame therefor. When Major Atkinson moved the second reading of the million loan bill, Mr Montgomery moved, as an amendment. " That the financial proposals of the Government are unsatisfactory," and a general engagement ensued. If the gallant Major had moved the second reading of the three million loan bill, the attack would have been made in the same way. No doubt the Auokland members felt the were bitting at a dear friend at the call of duty. Let us try to illustrate our meaning. Many an Englishman has the utmost regard for some Frenchmen with whom he is intimately acquainted. Perhaps obo may have a friend of that j nationality who is even dearer to him than any of bis own countrymen. But supposing a deadly war t» break out between the two countries, and every man be called to arms, these friends might be found opposing each other in the field of battle, and perchance the one be slain by the other's hand. So in the No-confidence Debate. The million loan, in so far as it constituted one of the Whitaker Government's proposals, might have been killed through the Opposition carrying the day. One distinct issue—is the Government to go out of office ?—was answered in the negative, or, in other words, the attacking party were repulsed. That, however, did not render the million loan proposal secure, for although the No-Confidence motion (or, more properly, amendment) had been defeated, there was the million loan motion to be passed, and it was quite competent for those who had voted to keep the Government in office to endeavor to defeat this particular bill. How did the Auckland nine, maligned by the Herald, vote then ? They nearly all voted for the million lo^n, the exceptions being Messrs Swanson and Sheenan. The Heraid knew all this but it did not suit its purpose to take cognizance of it, and why p Because the cause of its chagrin is that the Auckland men should fulfil their hustings pledges, and support the Opposition, rather than place their neck under the heel of the Whitaker admin*, istration, whose cause the old lady of Wyndham street, as in duty bound, has undertaken to espouse, and we may add whom we ourselves have in a moderate degree favored. The Herald conveniently ignores the fact that parties were so evenly balanced that had the Government been defeated, the support of the Auckland members was so essential to the success of any new Ministry that it is more than probable they would have been able to dictate their own terms. For our contemporary to insinuate that the Opposition were opposed to the line proposed through the King Country is utterly without warrant, and a gratitious assumption. Those there were who expressed no love for it, but quite as many Government supporters could be found who like it as little in their hearts. What do our readers think of this mild sentence in the face of the explanation we have afforded? Our contemporary says .-—"The disunion of Auckland members has always been a proverb, but it was thought that on the main trunk railway, at all events, there was a unanimity. And yet it turns out that a majority of the Auckland members were in favor of turning out the Ministry, because they dared to propose securing the . construction of this line 1 " To characterise those words at their true worth, we should have to descend to unparliamentary language. The Herald is about the last paper in the Province that should write about disunion in the ranks of the Auckland members. About five years ago Auckland returned almost a solid phalanx. But four of these ratted, and who was it that first extended the hand of friendship to and patronised these rats? Why, the Herald. And O the irony of fate ! Who should be the only member, with the exception of the member for the Thames, to vote against the million loan, but honest Willie Swanson, the leader of those self-same rats. We quite approve of Mr Sheehan voting against the Government or an Government which will not grant us the Thames railway, to which - the country is pledged. The Herald goes into hysterics over the railway fronjfTe Awamutu southwards, but has not a

word to say in aid of the Thames railway. Altogether this article of which we cm?. only spare space to give our readers a' faint description, is a dastardly libel upon the Auckland members, is discreditable to a journal professing to be the leading newspaper in the colony, and is worthy only of—the Herald and general execration.