Original Correspondence.

Auckland Chronicle and New Zealand Colonist, Volume 2, Issue 33, 21 March 1844, Page 2

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Auckland ChronicU. Sir, —I cannot bat express surprise at your silence and that of your contemporaries, since the arrival of Hi* Excellency Governor Fitsroy, on the slum' tul imposts on newspapers which ha* never yet been carried into execution even ia th« oldest of the Britislj; Colonies, yet rathlesily io* flicied on the most recently formed. Though uo infliction could have been proposed more calculated to damp the energies of the settlor, or prove a greater drawback to the prosperity of the counv try ; presenting as it necessarily does the inter* change of local knowledge, dissemination of valuable data, and advice in reference to cultivation* the seasons, agricultural bints, &q. This ill advised measure resembles the jealoa* scrutiny exercised by some of the most despotic governments ou the continent of Europe, rather than the laudable feeling which predominates at the present day in Gieat Britain of diffusing knowledge in the cheapest form to the multitude. From tbia useless imposition no can aiise to the local government, or the community wliioll suflers from its infliction. The amounts received are given to a few shipmasters who have never solicited any such unlooked for gratuity, that received by them on letter- having been deems ed bv them amply sufficient. The Post Office gain* nothing by the arrangement, while to the public, it inoapacilates them from enjoying the very little literary amusement • that can be found in these settlements, where no paper is published, and reduces the settlers and tluir children to the position of those who live under the most despotic government now existing. Ia the Press doing its duty in preserving silence on this important subject while unredressrd. Why should our brethren in the sister colonies be less unshackled than ourselves, what particularly reprohensihle crimes have w« committed, that ourselve*, and the menial energies of om children shall be punished by the most odious of taxes/ In 1826 Governor Darling attempted this very impost in New South Wales, he was a man of firmness and determination, but in the severe struggle that ensued he was defeated, and no subsequent Governor has had the hardihood to attempt a similar stroke of policy t

Governor Fitxroy has said that he came among us to do all the good he could, and we feel persutd* ed that Kuoh it hia most fervent wish, it it therefore incumbent m us to make known ancelo his Excellency and respectfully request that this odious tax that oppres es the multitude with, out bestowing any corresponding benefit to any one, be rescinded until suoli time as a reply may re* turn to the ‘communioatiou of his Excelieocy on the subjeot. I am, &c. A SETTLER. (We quite ap;ree wilh our correspondent on the subject of his letter, but he appears to have forgotten that in our paper of the 15th Febry. last, we brought the question before the public, less it cannot be too often noticed until the odious impost be removed. We can, however, inform the public that his Excelleney has already strongly recommended the removal of this obnoxious tax in bis despatches to the Home Govern* ment.—Ed. Chron.)

To the Editor of the Auckland Chronicle. Sir, — As I have perceived of late you Lave given publicity to many abuses I think 1 may venture to aik a small boon. Duiing a previous residence in Auckland in the la ter end of 1842 considerable •ffort was made to oollect a subscription lor a Dispensary ; to such a good purpose 1 cheerfully subscribed ; business of importance caused my depar. ture from me colony, to which I have hut recently returned, and one of my tirst inquiries were relas tire to tbe success of so valuable an institution, which I fully expected to find in actjve amPbene* fioial operation, my disappointment has been equal to the sanguine hopes I bad entertained, for 1 am not only informed that no such institution exists, but all the parties 1 have conversed with can give me not the slightest information on the subject save that the ,c Southern Cross,” earnestly advocated tbe philanthropic and humane results of such an institution, results which have been displayed in •very colony where an iofumary has beeu established, would you oblige me Mr. Editor (and I have no doubt many other subscribers would like the same information) as to the probable cause of this institution being abandoned, as also the amount of subscription and what has become of the money. I remain your obedient Servant, A SUBSCRIBER TO THE INFIRMARY. [ln answer to our correspondent he may rest assured we will make every inquiry before our next publication but if the writer could inform us who were the Trustees or Committee we may then obtain some clue to inis Secret Labyrinth. —Ed. Chron.] To the Editor of the Auckland Chronicle. Sir,—ln the Times of yesterday is a letter written by a worthy who styles himself “ John Chubbuck, ’’ in which letter this person takes the liberty of speaking of me in no very respectful terms. It is not my wish, Mr. Editor, to take up your space nor waste my own time >n reply to the Mid letter, but as be feels so keenly about what I stated in the Conrt House, I will let you know who and what Chubbuck is, and then shew what truth there is in his letter, when he says “he left my bouse in disgust, &o.” On the 28th of last Aug* nit, Chubbuck oame to Auckland in the Brigand , in which vessel he was engaged before tbe inast, but for certain reasons Captain Paddon told him he might go on shore, Cbubbuok came to my effioe iu search of work, as a Printer, but I told him his services were not required, Chubbuck said that be had been from tbe Priming business for some .time, having been employed as a shepherd, hutkeeper, &o. in New South Wales, and that he did uot wish to go on board the Brigand again, but would be glad to give his services for his board and lodging. I told Chubbuck he might atop at my pl»Cc, and in addition to board and lodging, I always gave him six shillings per week for pocket money ! Chubbuck commence* his letter by saying, “ I regret that I am compelled to appear before the public to vindicate my character.” Should b» leturn to Moreton Bay, or New South Wales, he will find something to do to vindicate his character, as be bas stated in my office that be has received advances in New South Wales, to go as shepherd bnt did not fulfil his agreement. As to the manner he left Moreton Bay, I will (iu pity) dot expose him. Chnbbnck in his letter goes on to say, <l hut my braten faced accuser himself said, previous to their trial at the Siifytme Court, that Ellis and bis crew should be badged from tbe evidence that bad appeared.” To tins falsehood, Mr. Editor, I need only remark that there was no evidenoe given that I ever heard (as it was private at the Police Office), and of oourse I could uot have made use of the expression imputed to me. Again, Chubbuck says, " I left his house in disgust.” In reply to leaving my hnnse in disgust, 1 can only say that on Saturday 25th February. I gave instructions to my foreman not to allow Chubbuck to work in my office after that day, (as I was goiug to the Bay of Islands) in consequenoe of his bad conduct. About 10 o'clork on that Saturday Chubbuck got his money, and when my back was turned, left my office without completing bis weeks work, but as his services were of very little conseqnencf, I, on ray return, did not think it worth my while to take him before the .benoh and punish him for leaving in tbe manner he did. In conclusion, Mr. Editor, 1 have only to say, as I said in the Court Hon»e, that Chubbuck stated m my office, 44 If he was on Ellis’s jury he woold not Cod him guilty "and two others likewise beard him. I am aware, Mr. Editor, it i« not very prudent in noticing anything that my discarded servant might •ay but at tbe same time it is right that Chubbuck •bnuld act with a little more discretion. JOHN MOORE. March 9fi. IR4 f.