THE FOX LETTER.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 2760, 30 June 1894, Page 2

THE FOX LETTER.

The result of the Royal Commission is that instead of explaining matters it has deepened the mystery. The Commissioner, it seems, has acquitted tbe Post of obtaining by dishonorable means tbe information as to the contents of Colonel Fox's letter to tbe Premier ; and it has inferentially found it was a Minister of the Crown, Sir P. A. Buckley, who divulged tbe secret. Passing by for a moment the fact that the Commissioner arrived at this finding notwithstanding Sir Patrick Buckley's oath to the contiary, thence comes a complete overtnrn of the theory by tbe statutory declaration of the editor of the Post that neither Mr Buckley, Mr Cadman, nor the messenger who carried the letter from one Minister to the other gave tbe information. Tbe Royal Commission has thus been an expensive farce. It has not only been not able to find out the truth, but it has set oat what is evidently the reverse of truth. Toe New Zealand Times, which on this occasion is at one with its contemporary, says :—: — 11 We may point out in corroboration of the Poßt's statement, that the facts known to the public — we know nothing of the evidence which has guided the Commissioner — contradict point blank the conclusion of the Commissioner that the Post obtained its information on April 4th between certain hours during wbioh the papers were in the custody either of the Hon. Sir Patrick Buckley or the Hon. Mr Cadman or in transit between tbe. two in a closed envelope in charge of a messenger. Firstly, the Post announced that Colonel Fox bad resigned his position several days before any Minister had seen the letter ot Colonel Fox to the Premier. Seoondly, when we announced, after enquiry, that the Colonel had ocly resigned conditionally, the Post replied with evident knowledge of the facts. Thirdly, it is matter of common talk in the city that the Post people have openly stated that the contents of the letter were known to them before the 4th of April. Fourthly, we understand it is in evidence before the Commission that the Post reporter, on entering one of tbe Ministerial offices on morning of 4th April, informed its occupant that he knew the letter had arrived, and was aware oi the contents.' 1 At the time of writing we bave not seen the offioial report nor any precis of the evidence, but enough hao been made public- to show that tbe truth is not yet out. One of the most striking features is that despite his denial Sir Patrick Buckley appears to have been suspected by his colleagues, and that bis oath was not sufficient to secure his absolute exoneration by the Commission. That has come from tbe editor of the paper whiob is most bitter in its opposition to the Ministry, and against tbe staff of which very degrading orders were not long ago issued by the Government. Better give up the chase. A great deal of energy and money has been wasted over the shadow, while tbe substance is being forgotten, -The prinoipal question after all is whether tbe contents of tbe letter were true.