THE AGENT-GENERAL'S FIGURES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 55, 6 March 1900, Page 2

THE AGENT-GENERAL'S FIGURES.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I noticed in your cable news last evening- that a leading Sydney paper challenges Mr Eeeves' figures in his estimate of the strength of the Boers. I am only astonished that his figures have not ueen challenged long ago, for his bias towards the enemy in his estimates of the losses of the war—absurdly understated on , the side of the enemy and overstated on our side, given with such seeming unction from time to time—also call for challenge. As an example, take Mr Eeeves' cable of yesterday, stating in an authoritative manner that in the operations ending in the surrender by Cronje the Boer losses were small, whilst that general himself says that his losses were frightful. A day or two ago Mr Reeves cables that the total Boer losses from the commencement of the war amount to 9000, against our 15,000. Members of the Boer Council of War say that Cronje alone, during that time, has lost SOOO.- The same annoying bias underlies every cable message he has sent. A short while ago your London correspondent gave an extract from a magazine article by Mr Eeeves, in which he says that "whilst the colonies are willing to help the Mother Country with men and money, it must not therefore be taken for granted that they agreed with the justice of the Avar." What an utterly a.bsurd statement this seems in face of .the almost frantic spirit of patriotism and devotion to the Mother Country repeatedly shown by the colonies during the war, through good and evil tidings!—l am," etc., C.P.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—By whose authority, or for what pui-pose, does our Agent-General spend his time in telegraphing- any item' of news which tends to belittle the tremendous exertions of our generals and troops in Africa? He alone sends word that the enemy's forces have been greatly over-estimated, that there are only 39,000 of them altogether, that the Boers total loss is under 10,000, whilst ours is 15,000; and this morning- lie is again to the fore with the news that "Lord Eoberts' loss in relieving Kimberley and the capture of Cronje Was 1300, whilst the enemy's loss in killed and wounded was small" —he is reluctantly compelled to add, "but 3600 of their 'fighting men and a' large number of non-combatants were taken," and even then his number, 3600, is lower than

any other estimate. If his lugubrious news were true that would be some little excuse for sending it, but his figures are disputed by the "Daily Telegraph," and the "Cape Times" places the enemy's forces at 5C,500, exclusive of artillery.

It is only a week ago since it was announced that our total loss of casualties to Febry. 17 was under 10,000, and certainly we have not lost 5000 since. And will anyone in their senses believe that the loss in killed and wounded of Cronje's army could possibly have been small. Cronje himself says his losses were terrible. But anyhow, Sir, it seems to me when every British heart is throbbing with •joy and thankfulness at the success of our troops, that our Agent-General could be better employed than in picking out every item to belittle thenefforts.—l am, etc., J. THOENES. 01, Queen Street.