The Star. FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1903. THE SOUTH AFRICAN SERVICE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7606, 16 January 1903, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1903. THE SOUTH AFRICAN SERVICE.

Thft "Otago Daily Times" appears to have had none the .best of the discussion which it invited over the South African steam serrice. The history of the controversy must be pretty familiar to most of our readers. It opened by the " Times " formulating a number of complaints against, the conduct of the service, the chief of which were.-i— (1) That the service did not run regularly ; (2) that the first vessel, the Devon, "in violation, of the terms of the contract," called afc Brisbane on her outward voyage to South Africa;' (3) that the vessel now loading, the Sussex, would nob visit Port Chalmers for 5000 carcases of mutton, but requited a guarantee of afc least 20.000 carcases ; \ and (4) that the southern portibn of the colony was not equitably treated. Our contemporary laid particular emphasis c-n the last- of the four complaints. In proof of its charge it published a statement to the effect, that the agents of the service had refused to send a vessel to load at Dunedin, although tlieir refusal amounted to a violation of the contract, and although a very large quantity of produce was awaiting shipment at that port. This charge had a very serious ring about it until it was disproved by a representative of the Department of Industries and Commerce and the New Zealand agents of the service. From their statements it appears that, instead of there, being a. large quantity of produce a waiting shipment at Dunedin, there was onij r a few tons, a paltry amount, which certainly did not justify the Sussex being sent to thafc port. By wa 3- of a retort the- " Daily Times " reiterated its former statements, but as it did not succeed in disposing of the official explanation it left a doubt as to the acciuv.cy of it- ar.r-cr.ions. For our part, we think t lv.it our contemporary would have been well advised to remain silent, instead of launching out into a violent condemnation of a m- rvice which is yet in its infancy. Ths' most it- could have hoped to prove w;is the perpetration of transient mistakes, and if it had succeeded in establishing as much as this nobody would have derived much benefit from its success. But instead, it- set out, apparently, to prove the existence if permanent defects, and paid the penalty of it? unusual disregard of caution br di "cover in" that ifc ha-d merely siirrcd up a mar_ s nest.