Answers to Correspondents.

Auckland Examiner, Volume 1, Issue 45, 22 October 1857, Page 2

Answers to Correspondents.

Candidus.— We believe it was Mr, Fox who scornfully pooh-poohed the Native Difficulty Question as neither more nor less than the Native Difficulty Fudge! It is certain that from first to last Queen Victoria’s New Zealand Viceroys have been little better than merest political automata made to kick all manner of ways by Downing Street people who—held the wires. Reviewing their tortuous, vaccilating, any-thing-for-a-quiet-life sort of “politics,” one cannot help suspecting that they were afraid of not having a Native Difficulty or Fudge Question; that to deceive Natives while disgusting Europeans was part of their instructions not to be departed from; and that in ruling New Zealand the mother country had not, for object the good of either its Native or European inhabitants. To set them by the ears very admirable arrangements have been made. In 1853, Major Nugent, then Native Secretary, told Native Chief Paul that his people ivould be entitled to thirty shillings a month on every digger's licence. Diggers went to dig, and did dig on some of their Coromandel land ; but two shillings a month was all that the Native lanaowners got! Can we wonder that being tricked once they should object to be tricked again, and despise a Government whose word cannot be confided in. According to ancient wisdom if we would cure the bite of a scorpion the sure plan is to crush another scorpion on the wound. Our Native population may think an effectual remedy for the injuries inflicted upon them by successive Viceroys is found in antagonism to whatever will advance European interests. Native “perversity” has been complained of; and those who make the complaint assure us that Native demands “ rise in proportion to our own impatience.” Now, we admit the “perversity” of our Native population But that perversity is a natural consequence of Imperial politics. So long as our deceitful system of “ managing” Natives is persisted in, it will be idle to hope that they will do other than pay us back in our own coin. Successive Viceroys have professed to treat them as if they were living under British laws, and, equally with Europeans, the object of British protection. No fouler profession ever was made. Our Constitution Act may be cited in proof of its utter deceitfulness. Clause 53 empoivers our General Assembly- to make laws “for the peace, order, and good government of New Zealand, provided that no such laws be re-

pugnant to the law of England.” Now, the law which forbids Native holders that most important of all the rights for which Natives contend, namely, the right to sell their land as they list and to whomsoever they please, is contrary to the law of England. No law prohibits a “subject” of Her Brittanic Majesty (unless he happens to be a born New Zealander') from selling his own land any more than it prohibits him from selling his own sheep or pigs. What more injurious (as well as deceptions) than telling Natives they live under British laws—are, in fact, so far as laiv goes, on terms of equality with us, when by clause 73 of the Constitution Act they are “excepted” from the privilege of selling land to “ any person other than her Majesty, her heirs, or successors ?” Such a state of things cannot last; and the sooner it goes the way of all Fudges the better. He do not believe in any Native Difficulty but this disgraceful one which Downing Street created and which Downing Street perpetuates. Give Natives a Crown title to land they individually possess. Give them facilities either to sell or let it. Give them that freedom they will know how to appreciate and cannot abuse—the freedom of trade. Boon more important it would now be impossible to confer upon them. They ask no more, and should be content with no less. Time for action has arrived. Commissioner Dillon Bell did excellent work in Coromandel, not only in settling for many long years unsettled land claims, but in preparing the Native mind to receive British impressions with regard to a general opening up of Coromandel land. We believe that nothing now save energetic governmental action is requisite in order to obtain the land required, or at least the right to dig over it. All obstacles are cleared away. But what can be hoped from a do nothing but wait-a-bit Government ?

An Old Wife— reminds us of the Old Maid who, when told that tea was a slow poison, said it must be wonderfully slots, inasmuch as she had taken on an average thirteen cups of tea every day for fifty years without finding herself a bit the ivorsefor it. We cannot, however, believe that the tea she delighted in was green, because green tea cannot be pronounced a wholesome beverage. Green tea is simply tea dyed by those accommodating people the Chinese who, finding dyed teas preferred to these with their natural color, oblige customers by dyeing large quantities. The process is thus described by a gentleman who visited the tea manufactories of /Shanghai and. Wheychou in 1846.— The superintendent of the tea-makers procured a portion of indigo, which he crushed in a bowl; he then pounded in a similar way a portion of gypsum (sulphate of lime), which had been previously subjected to the action of heat in the charcoal fire over which the ted was roasting. Four parts of gypsum were mixed with three of the indigo, and the result was a light blue powder. About five minutes before the''tea was sufficiently roasted, a spoonful of this powder was scattered over the tea in each pan; the tea was then rapidly turned by the hands of the workmen and came out blue—so that no doubt occurred as to the sufficiency of the powder to impart a distinct color.

MeMNON. — The case referred to is that of Egan versus Mason, which was heard and decided by Judge Stephens in the Supreme Court some time during last June. Verdict was for the plaintiff, but precise amount of damages, laid at £300., was referred to arbitration. It chanced that a person appointed to report upon that important occasion was in time to be too late to hear more than about one third of the masterly judgment delivered. As Mr Busby remarks in his Letter to the Governor, no report was published by our contemporaries. Hoivever, we have rough notes of evidence, and as these will not only meet the inquiry of our correspondent but furnish useful material for thinking to the public, we now publish them. Mr. Egan, the plaintiff said:—lam a Road Contractor. Advertisements oj" works to be tendered for were published in the New Zealander and Southern Cross. I tendered. A specification of the works tendered for were at the defendant’s Office. I tendered on the \3th of January. I commenced, but discontinued in consequence of not having any more junds. The only person to whom I applied for payment was Mr. Mason. While proceeding with the work 1 was repeatedly interrupted by Messrs. Mason and Simpson. During his cross-examination by Mr. Merriman, defendant’s counsel, Mr. Egan said : —I have tendered for other works ; though notin the same manner that these now under consideration of the Court were tendered for. I was present when my tender was opened. I should know the Contract Bond if I saw it. It is something like this just put into my hand; but I cannot swear that this is or is not a true copy. I did not say it was attached—it was annexed, something like the one now produced. I sent an account to the defendant for work done in Hobson Street. Cannot say when. I gave it to a clerk for the defendant. Prior to this I had spoken to the defendant who refused payment. 1 speak of payment for work done in Hobson Street. After being refused payment by defendant I applied to the Superintendent. On my application to him he said he had nothing to do with it. The specification was signed by the de-

fendant, who teas the only person I could look to for redress. I asked him how I was to be paid? His answer was that he would pay me 15 per cent, once a fortnight for work done. Two persons stood as securities for the completion of my contract. They were securities to the amount of £l,OOO. It was, I think, on the same day the contract was signed that I asked the defendant as to the mode of payment. Having to employ many men I felt anxious that there should be no uncertainty in regard to so important a matter. .Mr. Cunningham then on the Board of Works, said:—l saw the contract last February. I attended a few days since at the Board of Works Office, and pointed out to one of the clerks where it might be found. I was in the Board of Works Office eight months. Mr. Joseph McGhee said:—l am a clerk in the Road Surveyor’s Office. I searched for but could not find the Contract Bond for Hobson Street. The specification is signed W. Mason. P. B. W.Mr. Mason being called to give evidence said: —I am def endent in this action. My dealings with the plaintiff were on account and on behalf of the Provincial Board of Works. He had had two or three previous contracts with that Board. I never paid him any money. He never applied to me for any. Prior to the 18z7t of November his applications were in writing. I remember his asking me to have the work measured and to certify as to his account. Was not aware of any variation as to the Provincial Board of Works mode of entering into contracts. There are printed forms of Contract on which officers of that Board always act. During cross - examination Mr. Mason said :—I did not upon any occasion promise to pay Egan any sum or sums mentioned in this contract. I mean that personally I never promised to pay him. I am not the person to pay. I merely certify. I was appointed Board of WbrAs Officer by Mr. Brown, not by Dr. Campbell or Mr. Bartley. My appointment was not a written one. Mr. O Rafferty, Mr. Simpson, and myself constituted the Board of Works. We had equal authority. In answer to Hr. Rochefort, plaintiff's counsel, who asked if Mr. Egan had ever applied to him, Mr. Mason, for money on account f work done in Hobson Street, the latter gentleman said :—Mr. Egan did apply to me for money. Were Ito declare that he did not apply to me for money my statement would be incorrect. But he never applied personally to me. Let the question be plainly put and I will plainly answer it. I don t wish the Jury to be misled. Egan may have applied to me for money, but I conceive the application to have been made to me as Officer of the Board of Works.