The Treason in south Africa.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15112, 30 October 1914, Page 6

The Treason in south Africa.

The public will hear with much satisfaction to-day that General Botha has lost no timo in taking steps to-put down tho rebellion set on foot by Beyers and Do Wet. Wo do not know whether the news from South Africa is to bo subject to as strict a supervision as tho news from Europe, but wo aro not yet supplied with details, further than tho fact that the Primo Minister, operating from Rust-en berg, lias come in touch with tho rebels, and, after taking prisoners, is pressing his pursuit. Rustonberg is an important town about- fifty miles west of Pretoria, in tho "Western Transvaal, and wo conclude that the rebels have moved northwest from Hoilbron, which is in tho Orango Free State, just south of tho Transvaal border. Were not tho rebellion such a deeply regrettablo occurrence, wo could find very interesting tho slrango spectaclo of Botha fighting for the Empiro against his old col-

league Do Wet, now turned traitor. Tho Prime Minister is a much better commander than the rebel leaders, and

is supported not ouly by far stronger forces, but by tho majority of the population. In an official announcement tho Government gives this explanation of its curious delay in taking action : that although aware of tho preparations of tho rebels, it desired to exhaust every means of preserving tho peace without bloodshed.. Although that was a very desirable object to achieve, tho Primo Minister ought to havo known that a man who would behave as Beyers had behaved was unlikely to abstain from mischief, and sharp action immediately after iho Maritz outbreak would in all probability have convinced tho Anti-British irrcconcilablcs of tho folly of giving active expression to their treacherous instincts. 'Tho Times'' does not think tho rebellion serious, and if, as there is sufficient reason to believe, the majority of the Boers aro behind Botha, "Tho Times" i\s obviously right. Tho i forces at the Government's command aro too great to make tho rebellion anything worse than a local nuisance, and the fact that it is General Botha who is defending the Imperial interests will make it impossible for the Germans to mako any capital out of

the troub.o. They can say, of course, what all the world has known, that a anal I section of the Boers hate the British Empire, but that is all. In tho meantime, it is to be hoped that the crushing of the rebellion will bo accompanied by tho capturo of Beyers, who has been guilty of more than mere rebellion, and merits the extreme punishment reserved for traitors.

A couple of days ago wo had a brief reference to an interesting statement by the Hon. Mr Rhodes as to the Post Office Savings Bank returns. The member for Avon had eaid that tho public, distrustful of the Government, were taking out their money, and that when his party was in office tho excess of deposits "regularly" enabled the Government to obtain a million each year from tho Post Office. -Vlr Rhodes disproved both of these assertions. But that has not stopped the Government's critics from repeating the second of them. In one Opposition quarter wo find this statoment: — "Ho (Mr Rhodes) wanted to show for certain that Mr Russell Tiad taken liberties with tho truth when he said tho Liberal Government for some time had been able to obtain nearly a million a year from the excess of deposits over withdrawals. In an attempt to do this, ho uicked out isolated quarters as far back

as 1584. when the excess had been only a few thousand pounds, and wished to know how Mr Russell's millions could be obtained from such amounts, but ho would not look at the ..gures for the six years which the member for Riccarton had in his mind."

Wo do not know what "the member for Riccarton" had in Mr Russell's mind, but we do know what anyone can find for himself in any Post Office Department Report. In only three years did tho excess of deposits reach a million. In 1912 the excess was only £275.471; in 1909 it was £111,799; in lOCS it was £250.251. li foil as low as £31,717 in 1898. There was an excess of withdrawals amounting to £15,762 in 1594. Tho average annual excess of deposits under the '-Libera!" regime was, not a million, but less than £420,0*.0. For the first nine ntontns of the present year the deposits have exceeded the withdrawals by £500,000.

Mention was mado in the House yesterday of a rumour that tho Government contemplated dismissing Civil Servants, or cutting down their pay. Mr Herdman contented himself with saying tho rumour was very silly. Mr Allen said that it was put on foot by tho Opposition, like a great many others. Thar this is true nobody will doubt. Sir J. G. Ward and Mr G. W. Russell rose up to protest, and denied Mr Allen's statement. For our part, u-c do not see why they expect their denial to bo accepted. Their candidates aro already busy spreading the pretty "Liberal" stories. In any event, this particular Opposition invention is a very little ono compared with the terrifying talcs Mr Russell told in I'Jll, and which he will no doubt tell again. Did ho not say it was tho Reform Party's intention to abolish old-ago pensions and the system of State advances? The Opposition are, not very disoreet in their latest story. Talk concerning the dismissal of Civil Servants only serves to remind the public of tho Government which, at a.time of financial difficulty, dismissed Civil Servants wholesale. That was the "Ward Government. In tho course of a debate in tho House of Representatives on Tuesday, some fresh light was thrown upon the title of tho Loader of the Opposition to bo considered a sound administrator of the public finance. Although tho Opposition critics carefully avoid tho subject, everyone knows that, the shortdated loan which Sir J. G. Ward raised in 1910, and which, prior to the war. was freely mentioned as a proof-of his wisdom in arranging for maturity to coincide with an easy market, matures in December next. That vra s a bad blunder, but just as bad wa.s the blunder which landed poor Mr Myers in trouble and cost tho country a deal of money. It now appears that in January. 1912, tho High Commissioner urged Sir J. G. Ward, who wa.s then Prime Minister, to raise a loan at the earliest opportunity, which ho was authorised to raise, which was badly wanted, and which could havo been got on reasonable enough terms. Ho refused to raise the money —ho was then exporting Mr Massey to succeed him, and was unwilling to help tho country lost bo should help Mr Massey—and as a consequence Mr Myers had to raise a loan of A\ millions, which cost the country well over £5 per cent, for the cash received.

AYJien these facts wore mentioned in tho House on Tuesday, the Loader of tlie Opposition was very angry indeed. His first line of defence was tho contention that tho High Commissioner's advice should not have, been communicated to tho Houso—on tho principle, apparently, as tho "Dominion" suggests, that the public interest is of less account than tho party interest of blundering ox-Ministors. Of course Sir Joseph Ward had other excuses : that he was not entitled to romrait his successors

(althougb he was at tho time denying that ho was in a minority or likely to be replaced), that tho responsibility was not the High Commissioner's, and that (this ia a fine specimen of mental confusion) there wero unexhausted .loan authorities. Tho little disclosure will hardly surprise those who have given any real attention to tho administration of Sir J. G. Ward when in chargo of the country's finances, but it will probably causo other people to 'doubt whether ho was even deserving of such credit a.« his less fulsome eulogists havo allowed him.

Our Opposition friends appear to have unlimited faith in tho ignoranco and tho shortness of memory of tho Opposi-

tion electors. On Tuesday tho local Opposition journal said: "In their first two years of office up to March last Mr Massey and his colleagues increased, tlie public debt by £9.-100,523." We exposed this gross misstatement next da pointing out that Air Massey and his colleagues did not increase tho public debt as stated. Part of the increaso of £9.496,525 from March 31st, 1912, to March 31st, 1911, was duo to tho raising of a 4J million loan by Mr Myers after March 31st, 1912. and before'Mr Massey took office. Yesterday our contemporary attempted to defend its falsehood by saying that what it said on Tuesday was, not that Mr Massey and his colleagues increased tho debt by £9,496,525, but that "in tho first two years of office that were enjoyed by Mr Massey. the public debt was increased" to that extent. If the people for whom tho Opposition papers cater cannot see the shabbinoss of this new misstatement and shuffle, then wo can congratulate ourselves afresh upon not having them on our side, and can understand why they remain "Liberals."