The Star. SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1902. PRO-BOER FICTIONS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7293, 4 January 1902, Page 4

The Star. SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1902. PRO-BOER FICTIONS.

On* feature of tihe part played 1 by the joolonaes in the war is the singular •unanimity which has prevailed! concerning the justice of Great Britain's quarrel. At the 'outbreak of hostilities the Press, the pulpit and 1 public opinion virtually agreed that the ■Empire could have done nothing else but embark in the struggle, and daring the two years which nave elapsed since, tihey have not departed from thds conviction. Here have been exceptions to tibis rule, but they, have been few, and! for the most part have belonged to a very limited section, iwihose utterances on any subject seldom commandi respect. Included in this category are, perhaps, two. members of the House of Bepresentatives and one Legislative Councillor, certainly no more. |We cannot , call to mind a single minister of the various churches in this colony who boa made use of any expressions wMoh could be construed inito a condemnation, of (the Britrisb policy in South Africa-. The newspapers all along have been unanimous in support of that policy, and, therefore, ft may "be said, not unfairly, that the public (opinion [here in favour of the Boers is re.:■'Jwesentod by two or itihree legislators. That fat not .a large proportion in a population SMbgek approaches one million, and in a Vountry in which- freedom! of speech is JoJMrried to a -degree certainly unsurpassed in toy other country. It is amusing, therefore, to find tih&t in one quarter^ at least, the colony iha opinions of the .people of New. Zealand) have been misinterpreted, and, moreover, misinterpreted so (completely that they are. represented to be little short of pro-Boer to the core. As ,i«ra said, it- is amusing, but considering jkhe quarter fromr which these, misinterpretations emanate it' ia hot surprising. " Bey- ' /bolds's Newspaper" recently published a paragraph which purported to come from a Canterbury correspondent, but as the writer feigned himself "Kai ora" Ibis knowledge of itoid Maori language suggests a closer inJKimacy with Fleet Street than with the ')■ plains of Canterbury. This correspondent Is represented as writing ifahat — " The feeling fanr with regard to the war is ' tiredness ' $ml a wish it was over, but our knowSedge ia little more full now than when fwe were mad) with excitement-. Had those, (who were opposed to the war been, 'allowed. to state their views in. the Press at the beginning of the strife, the war fever would never (have taken, hold of New Zealand. 33ie newspapers were New Zealand's real enemies." If " Reynoldsfe. Newspaper " had Bob forfeited the sympathy of all decent people long ago we should feel inclined to regret that it had! allowed itaelf to pub- • lish arrant rubbish, of this kind. But it has so systematically indulged in a policy of deliberate misrepresentation' that we can!not give it the credit of having been, misled. Whether the publication of the paragraph was inspired by our contemporary's unquenchable lust after fiction- or emanated from the imagination.' of one of the few pro-Boers by which! this country is disfigured, however, does not matter much. By this time surely the reputation of " ReyBplds's Newspaper " and its disingenuous associates is fully established, and the fact that the paragraph we (have quoted has ftppeared in its coloumns should be the tnost convincing proof of its falsity.