The Examiner. Thursday, September 17, 1857. "PUBLIC GOOD." SECRETARY STAFFORD VERSUS COUNCILLOR BRODIE.

Auckland Examiner, Volume 1, Issue 40, 17 September 1857, Page 2

The Examiner. Thursday, September 17, 1857. "PUBLIC GOOD." SECRETARY STAFFORD VERSUS COUNCILLOR BRODIE.

The madman who cuts a neighbour’s throat is hanged—clean out of the wav. The thief who,with loose notions touching meum and iuum, breaks into a neighbour's house is sent to rusticate in irons for j ears —where the felon receives bitter lessons. The pettiest perpetrator ,of crime (according to law) is made to feel that society will not spare those who make war either upon person or upon property. But there are crimes no law reaches, no law presupposes or even recognises the existence of. These are worst of all. A case in point is furnished by Mr. Secretary Stafford, who seems bent upon becoming unpopular. For some time past this man has tried hard to make himself odious and bring his ministry into contempt. Not unsuccessfully either. At this moment we think it would be difficult to find on earth's broad surface a General Government pi ore heartily despised than the miserable sham of which he is nominal head. He would fain pass for a statesman while condescending to acts which the merest country fair Jack Pudding would shrink from performance of. Latest of these we will take the liberty toexpose and animadvert upon, Government House is head quarters of officialism in all its varieties. There ministers “ most do congregate,” and with ministers such friends as theymay think it worth their while to be on politically good terms with. Councillor Brodie happened to be one of these. Disliked that Councillor may be ; but it is certain that he was on eating terras with Secretary Stafford, and that together they often stretched their legs under Governor Browne's mahogany. Well, upon one occasion, Councillor Brodie, being more than usually communicative, told Secretary Stafford certain things concerning one White, a Magistrate and Sub Inspector of Customs at Monganui. The next morning Councillor Brodie was astonished by a letter from Secretary Stafford, who wished to know if certain revelations made by him the previous evening were textually true. Brodie replied that they were not; but committed to paper the substance of revelations he had actually made, zkrtned with these, our Colonial Secretary did not, as he ought to have done, put White upon his trial, and call upon Brodie to make good, or retract, his charges, but merely communicated to White the nature of those charges. No less virtuously indignant than officials charged with peculation, or worse, usually are, this White took measures for laying a criminal information against his accuser! Why he did so is clear enough. Charged with winking at an illicit trade in gunpowder, or other forbidden articles of merchandize, h? felt that nothing could be more prudent than to put the boldest possible face upon the matter. Moreover, he knew that Brodie was a thorn in the Government’s side; that the Government wished nothing better than to be well rid of him ; that his communicative temper was a source of perpstual annoyance to them; and that a successful criminal prosecution would silence him for ever. So to work he went. A criminal prosecution was got up with so much secrecy that the first intimation communicative Brodie had of it was given him in the Supreme Court when Judge Stephens told White and his bad advisers he did not see why a man who merely wished to retrieve, or put in proper light, his own character should resort to a criminal prosecution. r l hat quick-witted Judge saw qtrite through the whole busin.ss.. And we fancy there will be but few unable to see through it almost as well as the Judge. A grosser attempt to burk all inquiry into the acts of “ gentlemen” in office never was made. A dirtier attempt to get rid of a rather free spoken, and therefore dangerous, “ friend” never was made by any statesman. Stafford cordially hates Brodie. So do the entire Government Home clique. He knows more than they wish the public to know. Hence their anxiety to have him convicted of some criminal offence They want him “ squelched.” He may be now and then palavared, but cannot always be reckoned upon. He is an unsafe, “friend” when the “friend” of politicians whose secrets he.knows and whose secrets, to their discomfiture, he may blab. Government House has its mysteries which Government House-people would ill relish the revelation of. Brodie might reveal them in part if not in whole. Crush the uneducated Marplot, became the Government House mot d'ordre.

If the fact were not so, why should Stafford take part with White against Brodie ? Why assist in getting up a criminal prosecution against him merely because he accused a Government officer of doing .that which no Government officer should do ? Why keep him in ignorance till the latest moment of a criminal prosecution which they iPng knew was pending ? —Let Brodie be what else he wifi—fool or knave, —truthful or untruthful, —he is a member not only of the Provincial Council, but of the House of Representatives, and as such a member of the General Government. Was it decent, or honorable on the part of that Government to invite him to make specific charges against one of their own officers, and after' he had (wisely or Unwisely) accepted their invitation, to make such acceptance the means of his destruction ? A more disgraceful business we never knew. Hotspur’s ambition was to pluck bright honor from the pale-faced moon. Stafford seems intent upon nothing so much as fishing up disgrace from the filthiest gutter-hole of politic?. Afterinducing Brodie to accuse Wbite, he helps "White to prosecute Brcdie; and after helping White to prosecute Brodie, he orders a Commission of Inquiry '. But that this criminal prosecution broke down, the public might have been kept any amount of time in ignorance of how Custom’s business has been done at Monganui, and how much they are belied whom Brodie accuses of dishonesty. Not only has the conduct of Stafford been tret cherous, but malignant, unstatesmanlike, suicidal, and absurd. Nothing could have been more foolish, or in worse taste, than his conduct in the Supreme Court Grand Jury Room on the day that a true bill against Brodie was not found. What he went there to see, to hear, or to do, it is hard to conceive, But while the Grand Jury were engaged in discussing the grave case before them, our exquisite statesman walked in with all that assumption peculiar to political exquisites and “as who should say”— l'm Mr. Secretary Stafford, demme. Having no right there he was made acquainted with the fact; but I'm Mr. Secretary Stafforddemme seemed to doubt the power of the Grand Jury to order out of their own room so great a genius and so marvellous a minister. After an unseemly conflict of opinions Mr. Kennedy, foreman of the Jury, put the matter to Judge Stephens who at once settled it in his usual decided, sharp, off-hand style, and I'm Mr. Secretary Stafford-demme was bowed out with all the respect due to so exalted a person ge. From what lias since transpired it appears that the position of Brodie was a perilous one. So well had White and his friend Stafford taken their measures that, as before intimated, until the day Brodie’s case was submitted to the Grand Jury he knew nothing whatever of the matter; no, not even that the parties Lad resolved upon proceeding against him by criminal action ! His enemies stole a march upon him so cleverly that but for Judge Stephens he must have been rewarded for giving information to Government concerning Government officer delinquencies, by a place in the felon’s dock ! The people of this colony asked for Responsible Government, and (as a most special favor) got it. Hating got Responsible Government, it seems reasonable to expect, that our Government should be conducted upon the responsibility - ofofficials principle. How can we hope for Responsible Government when those who govern may rob the public with impunity ? How can we hope for honest Government when ministers detestheartily, and would fain hunt even unto death, or the dishoi or which is worse, whoever enlightens them with regard to the misdeeds of Government officers? Were Stafford, and his no less culpable colleagues, worthy to rank amongst statesmen they would honor the citizen who enlightens them as to the scoundrelism, or incapacity, of their own servants. Were Stafford, and his no less culpable colleagues, as anxious as they pretend they are that official responsibility shouldbe enforced and Government carried on by way of honesty, they never would in any manner have countenanced the AntiBrodie criminal prosecution. What we write is written with objects higher and purer than personal ones. Were Brodie such as official fancy delights to paint him, we should be no less zealous in his cau>>q which involves and compromises the very principle of Responsible Government. In striking at Brodie our Colonial Secretary struck at the principle of individual honor as well as the principle of individual responsibility. If he and his colleagues are unprepared to carry out the responsibility of public servants’ principle, let them give place to better min. They can be spared. A certain noble Duke, with royal blood in his veins, was described as illustrious by courtesy. So are Stafford and his colleagues— For Stafford is an honorable man, So are they al), all, honorable mon.

If no otherwise honorable, they are honorable by courtesy. Bur the ministers of a great colony should be honorable and illustrious by divine right of great deeds. There is abundant reason to believe that a majority of the Grand Jury entered upon their work with “ a foregone conclusion" as to the desirableness of “ going death upon Brodie." The Superintendent’s newspaper breathes vengeance against such Jurymen as did not choose to find a true bill just to oblige official mailignants who meant vengeance, who hoped to have their fill of vengeance, and one of whom is reported to have assured some of the eagerly expectant by-standers that in ten minutes they would see Brodie in the hands of the police I It is easy to understand why officials who, at public cost, butter their bread on both sides, should wish to make personal truth a criminal offence. They want to do as they please without being called to account for their doings. Meritorious officials have all to gain by publicity. A recital of their acts is the homage which most honors them —and they know it. But officials who gull the public, or plunder the public, have no taste for exposure. Where carcases are there will the vultures be gathered together. Who ever knew vultures relish the intruder who scares them from their prey ? The question raised by this attempt to deter public writers, or public men of any sort, from telling what they know concerning official mismanagement and peculation, is a constitutional question. We will not consent to have it dealt with as a-personal one. Our remarks arc penned with the view to “ wider issues and larger reach” than can be included within the narrow limits of a question merely personal.