That the campaign on the Niagara frontier might have been conducted on lines which would have proved much more satisfactory for the success of the Canadian forces, is admitted. It seemed to be a combination of errors and omissions from the beginning, which furnished food for unfavorable criticism and condemnation by journalistic and arm-chair critics which created impressions on the public mind that exist even at the present day. Of course each critic would have done different--this plan or that plan "should have been" adopted, regardless of all military rules. The trite saying that "nothing succeeds like success" should be supplemented by adding, "and nothing more reprehensive than failure." In military operations success or defeat are in the scales, and the least little occurrence is liable to outbalance the other. No matter how carefully a commanding officer may lay his plans, or how minutely he may explain them to his staff and subordinates, if one does not do his part in promptly carrying out instructions at the proper moment, the whole machinery is thrown out of gear, and failure is the inevitable result. In the first place, while Gen. Napier's plan of campaign was excellent in itself, there were several very important things omitted that were essential to its success. That of the greatest importance was the lack of proper provision being made for obtaining information of the exact position and movements of the enemy, such as a corps of competent scouts could have given. That omission is fatal to the success of any military movement. Again, those who were in command of columns on the 2nd of June do not seem to have had an intelligent idea of the country they were about to move over, and had to rely on whatever chance information they could obtain, much of which, in the excited state of the minds of the people, was unreliable. To condemn any particular officer for an unlooked-for disaster is a serious matter, unless such defeat is clearly the result of his own negligence, or some movement of which he had personal control. Therefore critics should always be careful to put the saddle of blame on the right horse.